BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Middle Level Bill

Motion made,
That the promoters of the Middle Level Bill, which originated in this House in the previous Session on 24 January 2017, may have leave to proceed with the Bill in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Object.
To be considered on Tuesday 12 September.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Legal Aid: Access

Thelma Walker: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that people in each region of England and Wales have adequate access to legal aid providers.

David Lidington: The Legal Aid Agency regularly reviews the capacity of the legal aid market to cope with demand for legal aid and takes urgent action where any regional shortfall develops. I intend to look more widely at the impact of recent policy changes on access to legal aid as part of a forthcoming post-implementation review, about which I hope to be able to say more shortly.

Thelma Walker: The latest report from the Children’s Society, “Cut off from Justice”, found that in Yorkshire we saw a 56% drop in the availability of free immigration advice between 2012 and 2016. Given the acute vulnerabilities of unaccompanied children who need to access legal advice, will the Secretary of State commit to consider those children in the upcoming review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012?

David Lidington: There will certainly be an opportunity, as the hon. Lady wishes, for representations to be made and consideration to be given to that sort of change. While the most recent legislation did indeed exclude non-asylum immigration matters, much family law, including cases involving vulnerable children who might be taken into local authority care, is still eligible for legal aid.

Philip Hollobone: While it is undoubtedly true that fewer people have access to legal aid than was the case before the reforms, it is also true that lots of people who are entitled to legal aid are not getting it. What can the Justice Secretary do to make sure that those people receive the finance that they need to get the access to justice that they require?

David Lidington: If people believe that they are entitled to legal aid, I would strongly encourage them to apply to the relevant authorities and to one of the legal aid providers that are contracted to provide that kind of advice. Even after the exclusion of certain categories in the most recent legislative reform, last year’s legal aid expenditure still amounted to £1.6 billion, which is nearly a quarter of my Department’s entire expenditure.

Laura Pidcock: Does the Minister believe that a greater number of people who have to represent themselves in court—so-called litigants in person—helps justice to be done in this country?

David Lidington: What is important is that we manage legal aid in a way that directs finite taxpayer resources to those cases where there is greatest need, and that we look actively for ways to simplify access to justice, including through the use of digital technology, so that people do not feel the need always to have that kind of professional representation.

Stuart McDonald: Barely a third of immigration detainees even know that they are entitled to 30 minutes of free legal advice in England and Wales, and only half have ever been able to access it. Given the horror show in Brook House that we saw on last night’s “Panorama”, will the Government act urgently to ensure that all detainees get access to the free legal aid that they urgently require?

David Lidington: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the centre that was the subject of last night’s programme is accountable to the Home Office. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is concerned about the allegations and appropriate action is being taken.
On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, legal aid is still available for asylum cases. I would certainly hope that appropriate measures are taken in every relevant establishment to bring those rights to the attention of anyone who is detained and might qualify for legal aid.

Gloria De Piero: May I press the Secretary of State on a publication date for the legal aid review? Will he tell me how many people who have been denied legal aid since the Government changed the criteria the Government have heard from?

David Lidington: I would hope to able to give Parliament details in the relatively near future. I am conscious that this work has been promised. We have not yet been able to make an announcement, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that matters such as a general election and a change of Ministers have intervened. I want to press ahead with this as soon as possible.

Employment Tribunals: Rebates

Ronnie Cowan: When the Government plan to announce how rebate arrangements will work for people who have paid employment tribunal fees.

Dominic Raab: Following the Supreme Court judgment on employment tribunal fees of the end of July, we immediately stopped charging them. We are putting in place arrangements to refund those who have paid the fees in the past, and we will announce the practical, detailed arrangements shortly.

Ronnie Cowan: I have been contacted by a constituent who highlighted the stress and financial burden that was placed on them while going through an employment tribunal case that they ultimately won. Will the Minister   ensure that those who are entitled to claim back employment tribunal fees are made aware of the process and reunited with their money in a timely fashion?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it can be quite an ordeal to go to an employment tribunal—or any tribunal—which is why I pay tribute to the conciliation work of ACAS. We will set out practical arrangements for the reimbursement of those fees. We want to ensure that all the points—particularly about people’s awareness—are properly thought through before we do that.

Bob Neill: rose—

John Bercow: Ah! The Chair of the Justice Committee, no less.

Bob Neill: It is no pleasure to say that a number of the criticisms of the development of this policy were foreshadowed in the Justice Committee’s report in the previous Session. As well as rightly and promptly acting to reimburse fees paid, will the Minister undertake to look at some of the specific recommendations in that report and at the factual findings on the evidence in the Court’s judgment? That would highlight a better way of developing policy in this area so that we do not end up in this situation again.

Dominic Raab: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee. We will certainly further consider his Committee’s report into this—[Interruption.] The former Chair of the Select Committee—

Chris Bryant: There is no Committee. He’s the Chair, but there is no Committee.

Dominic Raab: In due course.
The cost of employment tribunals last year was £68 million. Only £8 million came from fees; the rest was from taxpayers. It is inherently difficult to balance the contribution required by those who use the justice system against the amount that needs to be borne by the taxpayer, and we recognise that we got that balance wrong. We have ended those fees and are looking at practical arrangements to ensure that those affected are reimbursed.

John Cryer: In the light of the Court ruling and the Select Committee’s report, was the decision to introduce the fees in the first place a mistake?

Dominic Raab: We certainly accept the Supreme Court ruling. We think that we got the balance wrong and we have ended the fees. We are looking to ensure not only that we reimburse those affected, but that we learn lessons for the future.

Maria Miller: The Women and Equalities Committee also called for changes in tribunal fees, particularly because they affect pregnant women and new mums, who have experienced significant increases in discrimination at work in the past 10 years. Will the Minister undertake to look at the other part of our recommendation, which is to increase the time limit from three months to six months for pregnant women and new mums to bring cases to court?

Dominic Raab: We will certainly look into all aspects of the various Select Committee reports when charting the way forward.

Joanna Cherry: May I start by welcoming the Minister to his place?
The Supreme Court ruled that the secondary legislation that brought in the employment tribunal fees interfered with access to justice and employment rights, and that it discriminated unlawfully. Does the Minister accept that the Supreme Court’s judgment illustrates that fundamental rights such as equality and access to justice should not be changed or undermined by secondary legislation that receives little or no parliamentary scrutiny?

Dominic Raab: The hon. and learned Lady makes her point in a typically powerful way. The Supreme Court also recognised that fees can have a role to play. Of course, they do help to secure justice and access to justice by making the necessary resources available. Equally, we recognise that we got the balance wrong. That is why we have taken immediate action to end the fees. We will be coming up with proposals on the practical arrangements for reimbursement shortly.

Joanna Cherry: In 2015, the Scottish Government said that as soon as the power to do so was devolved—and that is pending—they would abolish employment tribunal fees. Does the Minister agree that the fact that the Scottish Government chose to do that voluntarily—the UK Government were forced to do so by the Supreme Court—shows that the case for the devolution of employment law to Scotland is strong so that the Scottish Government may protect the interests of Scottish workers and access to justice?

Dominic Raab: We are fully in favour of the principle of devolution. A whole range of justice matters have been devolved, and we will look very carefully at how we get the balance right.

Robert Jenrick: In the Supreme Court, Baroness Hale was very concerned about meritorious claims being put off by the fees. She also acknowledged that there are some unmeritorious claims, and those are the ones that damage relations in the workplace. Will the Minister consider fairer ways of sifting out unmeritorious claims, such as having a sift before the application is made into a full case?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend makes a strong point and that is certainly something we can look at. Equally, it is fair to say we got the balance wrong on the specific issue of fees. One of the strong elements we are looking to reinforce is the role of ACAS. We have seen that conciliation and the number of cases referred to conciliation have had a strong impact on reducing the number of cases that need to go to court or a tribunal.

Richard Burgon: I wrote to the Secretary of State back in July to call on him to issue a full and unequivocal apology to working people for deliberately and unlawfully blocking their access to justice through employment tribunal fees. Last week, I received a wholly inadequate reply, which I have here.  Will the Minister apologise today for the suffering that this policy has caused hundreds of thousands of working people?

Dominic Raab: We have conceded that we got the balance wrong. I am happy to say that I am very sorry for any frustration or deleterious impact that this has caused anyone who has been affected. That is why we are acting so quickly to end the charges and to make sure there are practical arrangements for the reimbursement of anyone affected by these fees.

Cyber-crime

Marie Rimmer: How Government investment in (a) cyber-security and (b) the National Cyber Security Centre will support victims of cyber-crime; and if he will make a statement.

Phillip Lee: The Government are investing £1.9 billion to transform our ability to respond to the cyber-threats we face. This includes continuing to develop our support to victims of cyber-crime. I am committed to making sure that victims get the support they need to cope with and, as far as possible, recover from the effects of crime. The National Cyber Security Centre is part of GCHQ, which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has ministerial responsibility for.

Marie Rimmer: Given that it is Government policy that victim support is commissioned locally by individual police and crime commissioners, is the Minister content that there is sufficient resource for victim support? Given the year-on-year increase in cyber-crime, and considering the national and international nature and background of cyber-criminals, does he not agree that a single, national approach to victim support would act as a better deterrent and a better support structure for victims, rather than allowing criminals to cherry-pick among the 43 police forces?

Phillip Lee: As I made clear in my initial response, cyber-security policy does not sit with this Department—in fact, it sits with the Cabinet Office. Victim support funding has gone up from £51 million in 2010-11, and I was pleased to announce that it is going up to £96 million in 2017-18. Most of that is spent via PCCs. Importantly, I have put in place an audit of the performance of PCCs with regard to funding for victims’ services.

Alex Norris: As crime changes and the focus on cyber-crime grows, what assurances can the Minister give us that police budgets will match that changed focus and that we will not see a loss of bobbies on the beat as resources are inevitably shifted?

Phillip Lee: Unfortunately, I am not a Minister at the Home Office, so I cannot really respond in detail to that question. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to write to the relevant Minister.

Mike Penning: When will we see the draft of the victims’ Bill, which was committed to by the Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition?

Phillip Lee: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. We committed to the victim’s Bill in the last manifesto. We are up against it in terms of parliamentary time, as I am sure he understands, but work continues on the legislation most likely to underpin the victims’ code.

Edward Davey: The Minister will recognise how vital international co-operation is in tackling cyber-crime. I hope he is aware of the excellent work done by Europol, with, for example, the UK sending over 400,000 malware files to its malware analysis service since its inception just two years ago. Have the Government decided whether the UK will stay part of that EU mechanism to fight cyber-crime?

Phillip Lee: I hate to repeat myself, but the two policy areas to which the right hon. Gentleman refers do not sit within the Ministry of Justice. Cyber-security sits with the Cabinet Office and our membership of Europol sits with the Home Office.

Child Sex Abuse: Compensation

Sarah Champion: What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of compensation paid by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in child sex abuse cases.

David Lidington: Child sexual abuse is abhorrent. The taxpayer-funded criminal injuries compensation scheme provides an important avenue of redress for victims and is accessible to victims of violent crimes, including physical and sexual assaults. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority administers the scheme and decides all claims individually, independently of Ministers and Parliament.

Sarah Champion: Will the Secretary of State commit to updating the guidance in three specific areas? First, children cannot be complicit in their own abuse. Secondly, as part of a grooming process, children are coerced into carrying out criminal activities. Thirdly, will he look at compensation for victims of family abuse under the same roof before 1979? At the moment, CICA is denying compensation on those grounds.

David Lidington: I am happy to look further at all those three issues. Following some of the concerns expressed earlier this year, CICA decided to mount an urgent re-examination of its own internal guidelines—in particular, to make sure that there is no risk that a child could be disqualified from compensation because they had given consent when that consent had, in effect, been forced from them by a subtle process of grooming. The Department is also aware of concerns that have been raised about how the rules of the scheme work more generally in relation to cases of child sexual abuse. We are talking to organisations such as Barnardo’s and Victim Support in detail about those concerns and the reforms that they propose to deal with them.

Liz Saville-Roberts: If it is a criminal offence to have sex with a child, how is such an offence anything but a crime of violence? To say that child victims cannot receive compensation for  their abuse is simply victim blaming. The definition of a crime of violence was last reviewed five years ago. When will this be reassessed to ensure that sexually abused children are not denied compensation?

David Lidington: As I have said, we are discussing with the various charities the concerns that they have expressed. If the hon. Lady’s point was about the distinction that CICA makes between consent in law and consent in fact, this has been written into the law since it was first introduced by the previous Labour Government, I believe, and administered during their time in office. Its purpose was to ensure that we did not end up in a situation where, for example, two 15-year-olds engaging in sexual intercourse automatically led to a claim for compensation —it would be left to the authority to look at the facts of the case. I am very willing to look at, and CICA is already looking at, the guidance that applies to individual cases, but we should not lose sight of the fact that there was a reasonable motive behind the law as it was originally drafted.

James Gray: No one will deny the absolute right and need of victims to receive proper compensation from CICA under these conditions, but does not the Secretary of State agree that there may be occasions—as in, for example, the very grave allegations made against the late Sir Edward Heath—when the informant is incentivised in one way or another to make the allegation by the likelihood of getting some kind of compensation? Should not the compensation wait so that the outcome of the investigation is known before the person making the allegations is paid?

David Lidington: The scheme operates to provide compensation for people who are victims of crime. Probably all of us, as constituency Members, can think of cases when somebody has been the victim of an assault, but it has been impossible to successfully prosecute the person or people responsible. A direct link to a trial and conviction is therefore not in the scheme. However, I do agree with my hon. Friend that if there is evidence that compensation has been sought fraudulently, the authority ought to seek the necessary legal action to recover those funds.

Offenders: Education and Employment

Rebecca Pow: What steps the Government are taking to improve offenders’ access to education and employment.

Matt Warman: What steps the Government are taking to improve offenders’ access to education and employment.

Sam Gyimah: Education and employment opportunities are crucial to help offenders turn around their lives. In line with our reforms, every prisoner will have a personal learning plan linked to their sentence plan. To make this reform effective, we are giving governors control over their education budgets to organise courses that fit prisoners’ needs.

Rebecca Pow: Gardening and horticultural schemes for growing edible crops are increasingly being incorporated into prison programmes and programmes for those on remand up and down the country, giving offenders transferrable skills and offering them future employment  opportunities, as well as encouraging self-confidence and, quite often, transforming unattractive concrete yards into much more pleasant green spaces. Has a formal assessment been made of some of those programmes, with a view to rolling out the best of the models even more widely?

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend is right. I remember visiting Rye Hill prison near Daventry and seeing the pride with which prisoners tended their gardens; they spent hours doing so. She may be aware of the Royal Horticultural Society Windlesham trophy award, which is judged by an independent panel who look at the best gardening schemes across the prison estate. If she does not mind, I should be delighted to put her name forward to be a judge.

Matt Warman: Category D prisons often have the very best examples of rehabilitation as they prepare to let their prisoners back into the community. North Sea Camp in my constituency has worked with the council not only on that rehabilitative work to prepare prisoners for work but, for example, on fly-tipping, saving the taxpayer £300,000. Does the Minister agree that the other prisons in the sector can learn from category D’s rehabilitative practices, and will he come to North Sea Camp and have a look at how well they can work?

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend has lighted on an important principle. Work in prison is vital to preparing prisoners for life after release—North Sea Camp has an excellent example—which is why I am supporting the New Futures Network to develop relationships between employers, governors and the world of work. I would be delighted to visit North Sea Camp in due course.

Barry Sheerman: I have never heard such complacency from the Government. The Prison Service is a shambles, and at the heart of that shambles is the lack of education, the lack of literacy, the lack of numeracy and the lack of apprenticeships—services that, as they are for our Scandinavian brethren, should be in every prison. When is the Minister going to wake up?

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman has come back from his summer holiday with his customary passion. I agree that if prisons are to work properly we need to give people the opportunity to turn their lives around. Prison reform is important to this Government. That is why we are giving governors more control of their budgets and more freedom to implement the plans that are necessary for offenders to turn their lives around. I share his concern and his passion, and such work is a priority for this Government.

Kate Green: How will the personal learning plans of which the Minister has just spoken operate when a prisoner is transferred from one prison to another? What guarantees can he give that the education path on which that prisoner has commenced can be continued in his or her new setting, and that there will be consistency of offer right across the prison estate?

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Lady points out a very serious problem that currently exists on the estate. Prisoners are transferred and cannot continue courses that they have started—for example, some were on GCSE programmes  and cannot finish them. We are looking at courses and technology systems that allow them to carry on what they have been doing when they are transferred from one prison to another, so that there is progression on all the courses. I completely agree with her, but we are looking at it.

David Warburton: If prison is to achieve anything, it must change lives. It has the best chance of doing that if we offer people both education and assisted places to work on release. Given that three fifths of offenders still leave prison without identified education or any employment opportunities, will my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend assure us that these programmes will be at the centre of the prison system and describe how these policies are being adjusted for greater success?

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend is right. About 50% of prisoners have the reading age and numeracy skills of an 11-year-old. If we are to give them a chance in life, we need to sort out education, but we also need to give them employment skills that are valued in the workplace. That is why prison reform, which is at the heart of the White Paper that the Government published last November, is carrying on at pace.

Imran Hussain: The chief inspectors of prisons and of probation recently issued a devastating report on the Government’s flagship community rehabilitation companies, which stated:
“None of the prisoners had been helped into employment by through-the-gate services”.
Will the Minister commit to an urgent review of the role of CRCs, including their delivery of education and employment services, and will he guarantee that no extra money will be passed on to those private companies until they can be proven to be fit for purpose?

Sam Gyimah: The probation reforms that the  previous Conservative Government rolled out mean that 45,000 offenders who previously would not have been supervised, because they had been in prison for less than 12 months, are now being supervised. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are challenges with what is a first-generation outsourcing programme. We have an ongoing probation review and extra funds have been invested in the CRCs, but we are still within the funding envelope that was decided at the start of the programme. We are carrying out the review to make sure that through-the-gate and other services operate as was envisaged in the original vision.

Prisons: Extremism and Radicalisation

Michael Tomlinson: What steps the Government are taking to counter extremism and radicalisation in prisons.

James Cleverly: What steps the Government are taking to counter extremism and radicalisation in prisons.

David Lidington: We have established a new extremism unit, between Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and the Home Office, to strengthen our approach to  tackling the threat of extremism in prisons and probation. Prison governors and frontline staff in prisons and the probation service are being given the training, skills and authority needed to challenge extremist views and take action against them. The first separation centre at HMP Frankland in County Durham was opened in June 2017, and the first prisoners are now being held there. Those facilities will hold the most subversive extremist prisoners, protecting the more vulnerable from their poisonous ideology.

Michael Tomlinson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, and it is right to say that extremists target and manipulate the prisoners who they think will be most susceptible. Given his answer, what impact does he anticipate the removal of such individuals will have on the prison population as a whole?

David Lidington: The decision to proceed with the separation centre was taken only after very careful thought. We judged that it would be beneficial for the general prison population, and in particular for vulnerable and impressionable prisoners, if we could take out of association with them those who pose the greatest risk. Those who are going to be in separation centres will be assessed by experts regularly, and they will be returned to the mainstream prison population only if it is judged that the risk they present has reduced to a level that can be effectively managed there.

James Cleverly: Many young men start their journey towards radicalisation by seeking out in prison the strong male role models they so often lack in their lives outside. What is the Department doing to ensure that there are more better role models within the prison estate to guide them on to a better path?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which I think has relevance not just to matters of penal policy but to social policy more generally. Many charitable and voluntary organisations are helping—for example, by bringing sport into prisons—to provide the adult male role models of which he wants more. In the context of extremism, it is also important to pay tribute to the work of the imams in the prison chaplaincy service who are arguing, from a basis of scholarship and expertise, to rebut the extremist ideology that some have espoused.

Keith Vaz: Figures from the right hon. Gentleman’s own Department show that there are approximately 1,000 prisoners who have either been radicalised or are vulnerable to being radicalised. When they leave prison, those such as Khalid Masood, the Westminster terrorist, need to be effectively monitored. Is the Lord Chancellor satisfied that there is a sufficiently robust relationship between the police and the prison authorities to make sure that when such people come out of prison we know where they are and what they are doing?

David Lidington: The information we have is that only one of those involved in the recent attacks in London and Manchester had spent time in prison. That dated back to 2003 and there was no evidence to suggest that that man had been radicalised in prison. We clearly want the strongest possible joint work between the  police, the Prison Service and the probation service. I believe that what we have at the moment is strong, but there are always lessons that can be learned and improvements that can be sought. We are committed not to be complacent but to continue with vigilance and determination.

Susan Elan Jones: The Secretary of State spoke in his initial answer of a new initiative. Does that come with new money and, if so, is it adequate?

David Lidington: It is part of the duty of the Prison Service appropriately to look after all those whom the courts have sent into custody. We have found the money for the separation centres from within Ministry of Justice budgets—a sensible prioritisation of expenditure that will bring benefits to the management of the prison population more generally by separating those who pose a particular risk through extremist ideology.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Sentencing

Lucy Allan: What assessment the Department has made of the adequacy of sentencing for crimes involving child sexual exploitation.

Dominic Raab: We have a robust sentencing framework for all crimes involving child sexual exploitation. The changes made in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 reinforced those punishments, giving the Parole Board a greater role to make sure that serious offenders are released only when it is safe.

Lucy Allan: Mubarek Ali will be released from prison on 1 November, five years after receiving a sentence of 22 years for child sexual exploitation in Telford. As the Minister just said, legislation was passed in 2015 to ensure that most serious offenders cannot be released until they have served two thirds of their sentence and satisfied the Parole Board that they are not a risk. What can he do to ensure that that legislation applies in this case?

Dominic Raab: I am aware of the case my hon. Friend raises, and of the heinous crimes that were committed and the appalling impact they had on the victims. She will know that the overhaul of the sentencing framework between 2012 and 2015 means that that type of sentence would not now be passed in that type of case. She will also appreciate that I cannot intervene in individual cases and that changes to legislation to strengthen sentences cannot be passed retrospectively. That is the problem and challenge in this case.

Jim Shannon: Bearing in mind that 56% of all victims of sexual offences in Northern Ireland in 2011 were under the age of 18, will the Minister outline the multi-regional approach that will be taken to deal with the aftermath of the sexual exploitation of children in the transition to adulthood?

Dominic Raab: That is a detailed and complex area, and I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on its impact in Northern Ireland.

Lisa Nandy: One barrier to successful prosecutions in child sexual exploitation cases is the fact that, too often, victims are wrongly thought to be complicit in their own exploitation. That highlights the importance of the issue my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) just raised. There must be absolutely no suggestion in any Government guidance that children can be complicit in their own exploitation. That is why the guidance from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority needs to be changed—and needs to be changed now.

Dominic Raab: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. No one wants to lay the blame at the door of any victim, let alone the most vulnerable—in this case children. She heard what the Secretary of State said about CICA: it will be looked at in the context of the issues that have arisen recently. It operates in a different context from the criminal justice system, in that it can apply when there has not been a criminal conviction.

Drones

Wendy Morton: What steps the Government are taking to prevent the use of drones over prisons.

Sam Gyimah: Drones are a serious threat to order and stability in our prisons, given the contraband that they are used to smuggle. Our intelligence work tells us that a lot of this activity is backed up by organised crime gangs. That is why we have invested in our intelligence teams. There is also a specialist unit between the Prison Service and the police service to track down and prosecute such offenders. In the last year alone, there have been 40 arrests and 11 convictions of criminals involved in drone activity, resulting in those convicted serving a total of 40 years in jail.

Wendy Morton: With offenders being more than twice as likely to be reconvicted within 12 months of release from custody if they are known drug users, what work is being done to tackle the supply—potentially using drones—of drugs into our prisons?

Sam Gyimah: Drones are one way in which drugs are smuggled into our prisons, but we are looking at all possible ways. For example, paper is sometimes impregnated with new psychoactive substances, which makes them very difficult to detect. The way to tackle the supply is to get intelligence not just from each establishment but from different parts of the Prison Service so that we can respond appropriately. We are investing heavily in doing so to combat the drugs problem in our prisons.

John Bercow: We are now substantially better informed.

David Hanson: The escape in February of a convicted murderer serving a 30-year sentence was linked to the dropping of a mobile phone into a prison in Liverpool using a drone so that he could liaise with villains outside to effect his escape. What steps is the Minister taking to enhance and expand the scheme that he has put in place to disrupt drones over prisons? In passing, has he found the prisoner yet?

Sam Gyimah: The right hon. Gentleman, as a former prisons Minister, is well aware that the job of tracking down and arresting criminals is one for the police service, not the prisons Minister. In response to his other question, we are looking at various types of technology to disrupt drones flying into our prisons to deliver contraband.

Employment Tribunals

Ellie Reeves: What assessment his Department has made of the reasons for recent trends in the number of employment tribunal cases.

Dominic Raab: In 2014, the Government introduced a requirement for potential claimants to consider conciliation before starting proceedings at the employment tribunal. The number of cases going to conciliation quadrupled, rising to 92,000 in 2015-16.

Ellie Reeves: In the year after employment tribunal fees were introduced, sex discrimination claims fell by 67% and pregnancy discrimination claims by 37%. The Supreme Court made it clear in its recent judgment that fees disproportionately affected women. The Minister has outlined plans to reimburse those who have submitted claims, but what steps will be taken to compensate people who were denied access to justice because they could not afford to pursue a claim in the first place?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Lady is right to refer to the ending of the fees and the proposals for reimbursement that we will bring forward shortly. If there were potential claims that should have been made but were not, anyone who was unable to bring a claim can submit to the employment tribunal to have their case heard outside the usual time limits. The judiciary will consider those applications case by case.

European Court of Justice

Carol Monaghan: What his Department’s policy is on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.

Brendan O'Hara: What his Department’s policy is on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK after the UK leave the EU.

David Lidington: The Government have been clear that in leaving the EU we will bring about an end to the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the United Kingdom.

Carol Monaghan: As you know, Mr Speaker, Scotland has its own distinct legal system. Brexit will have a direct impact on that system, on justice agencies in Scotland and on a range of devolved issues. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that distinction will be given serious consideration as the Brexit negotiations progress?

David Lidington: Yes. Indeed, when I spoke to the Scottish justice Minister Michael Matheson last month I emphasised to him that one of our key objectives in the official and ministerial-level meetings between my Department and his would be to ensure that the interests and features of the Scottish justice system are properly reflected in the UK’s work, particularly on future civil judicial co-operation with the European Union.

Brendan O'Hara: In January, the Prime Minister boldly and unambiguously asserted that Brexit would allow the UK to take back control of its laws and bring to an end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Last month, however, the official Government document on the ECJ said something entirely different: that Britain would be willing to work with the EU on arrangements for judicial supervision. Given that remarkable change, how did the Prime Minister get it so wrong in January?

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is misreading the Government’s position. The Prime Minister was very clear in her Lancaster House speech, as the Government have been, that this country’s exit from the European Union means that the EU’s treaties will cease to apply to the United Kingdom and that therefore the direct effect that decisions of the court of justice of the European Union have in the United Kingdom will cease from that point. What is also the case, as spelled out in the Government paper on dispute resolution, is that there are many international examples of arbitration mechanisms that involve different jurisdictions coming together to agree on how to take account of their different courts’ views in coming to a settlement when a dispute arises. We are approaching these negotiations in a constructive fashion.

Courts: Victims and Witnesses

Edward Argar: What steps the Government are taking to improve the court experience for victims and witnesses.

Justin Tomlinson: What steps the Government are taking to improve the court experience for victims and witnesses.

Phillip Lee: We are testing pre-trial cross-examination for child and vulnerable victims and witnesses in the Crown court, and testing this provision for certain eligible intimidated victims in three Crown court centres this autumn. We have installed remote links in each region and recently completed work on model waiting rooms. We recognise that there are concerns about the operation of the victims’ code, and we are considering how compliance might be monitored and improved.

Edward Argar: I welcome that answer. Despite the progress that has been made, attending court as a witness, and particularly as a victim, can still be very stressful. Will my hon. Friend enlarge on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that victims and witnesses know what to expect when they attend court, and that they are treated with respect in court and know when they are required?

Phillip Lee: We want to use technology to assist all witnesses, not just those who are vulnerable and intimidated. That is why we are exploring ways of making best use of technology, such as video links, to allow witnesses to avoid the stress and/or inconvenience of having to be physically present in the courtroom. We also plan  to develop an online tool, which will allow witnesses to access information about a case, such as a trial date, quickly and easily.

Justin Tomlinson: Research from Victim Support found that more than half of victims have unwanted contact with the defendant at court. How will the Government’s court reforms ensure that separate entrances, waiting rooms and facilities are standard across all criminal courts?

Phillip Lee: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are investing more than £1 billion to transform and modernise our court systems to make sure they put the needs of victims first. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service recently established model victim and witness waiting rooms at Nottingham justice centre, Manchester magistrates court, Newcastle Crown court, Liverpool Crown court and Aldershot justice centre, drawing on feedback from the Victims’ Commissioner, the Witness Service and court users.

George Howarth: The Minister will be aware that decisions on the support received by police and crime commissioners to work with victims are often made very late in the financial year. Will he consider three-year-long provision, so that services can be provided more efficiently and with greater stability?

Phillip Lee: There are areas where PCCs are doing very good work and there are areas where the work is perhaps not as successful. I have announced annual awards only because I want to get to grips with the evidence of what works, so that the money can follow that and we can deliver better services for victims.

Yasmin Qureshi: Prior to the introduction of the Prisons and Courts Bill in the previous Parliament, no research had been carried out into the effects of virtual justice reforms on witnesses—victims or defendants—or the extent of expected savings. Will the Minister guarantee that research into these key areas will be done and published in advance of the Bill being brought back to the House?

Phillip Lee: We are consulting a variety of different agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner on the work to which the hon. Lady alludes. We are in the process of testing pre-recorded cross-examination at a number of centres across the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I would not want the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) to feel that he was out of the water in some way. I call Mr Marcus Fysh.

Marcus Fysh: Justice delayed can be justice denied. It can also be very distressing for victims and witnesses, such as constituents of mine, to suffer repeated delays in the scheduling and notification  of hearing dates and the notification of verdicts, which in some cases have even been learnt from the opposing parties. What can be done to improve court processes and timeframes, and their communication?

Phillip Lee: All criminal justice agencies are committed to keeping victims and witnesses informed about their cases. The outcomes of cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses are available in court systems within 24 hours. Professionals who are involved in a case and are present on the day will know the outcome immediately. If my hon. Friend is aware of details of any other cases in which that may not be happening, will he please write to me? I will then respond.

Prison Officers: Recruitment

Alex Cunningham: How many additional prison officers have been newly recruited since January 2017.

Sam Gyimah: Between the start of January and the end of June 2017, there has been a net increase of 868 new prison officers. That puts us well on track to recruit 2,500 new officers by December 2018.

Alex Cunningham: The Minister will be aware of the major drugs finds and related problems at Holme House prison in my constituency, where experienced officers have left and have been replaced by 18-year-old recruits. Does he really think that recruiting youngsters is the answer when it comes to meeting the needs of our increasing prison population, tackling drugs, and solving the crisis in the Prison Service?

Sam Gyimah: I take issue with the implication behind the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are recruiting new prison officers. We were all inexperienced once, but that did not mean that we were not capable of doing our jobs. I have been to the Newbold Revel training centre; I know that many of our recruits are of the highest calibre, and that the recruitment methods are those that have been used over a number of years. The Opposition did not believe that we could deliver these numbers, but we are delivering them, and I think that the Opposition should be supporting the Government.

Peter Bone: As a result of the Government’s excellent policy, a new, modern prison has been built in Wellingborough. Can the Minister tell me how many of the new prison officers will be working there, and when the prison might open? If he cannot do so now, will he write to me, please?

Sam Gyimah: I will certainly write to my hon. Friend. The staffing arrangements at Wellingborough have not been decided yet, but we are very proud, and very keen to be progressive in opening the prison.

Richard Burgon: The Minister is boasting about the number of prison officers who have been recruited this year, but the Ministry’s own figures show that 35 prisons—a third of the total—have suffered a fall in front-line officer numbers since January this year. Is this another example of what the former Director-General of the Prison Service now describes as Ministers
“doing nothing except issue cheery press releases...which suggest all is going precisely to plan”?

Sam Gyimah: It has nothing to do with “cheery press releases”. There are 868 people on the payroll, who have started work in our prisons and are doing a heroic and brave job. We promised to invest £100 million to recruit 2,500 new officers by the end of 2013, and we are on track to deliver that target. Of course there are wider issues in our prison system, such as the retention of officers, but we are working on those. We are also going beyond that, recruiting smart graduates to work on the front line, and we have exceeded our targets for the Unlocked programme.
Those are not boasts. It was the Opposition who talked prison officers down and said that no one would want to work in our prisons. It is good to see people stepping up to do what is a brave and challenging job.

Topical Questions

Philip Hollobone: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Lidington: My priorities as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State are to uphold and defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, and to ensure that our prisons are safe and secure places that also work effectively, and with the probation service, to rehabilitate offenders. That means strengthening the front line in the way described by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), but it also means that we need to respond better to reports from prison inspectors. I am therefore setting up a new unit, ultimately accountable to Ministers, to ensure that we respond to, and follow up, inspectors’ reports swiftly and effectively.

Philip Hollobone: How many foreign-national offenders are there in our prisons, and why is not more being done to send them to secure detention in their own countries?

David Lidington: As of 30 June this year, there were 6,792 convicted foreign-national offenders serving sentences in our prisons. In 2016-17, we removed 6,177 such offenders from the United Kingdom—that is including prisoner transfers—and that is the highest number since records began.

John Bercow: I hope the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) will shortly reissue his textbook for colleagues on succinct questions.

Richard Burgon: This summer I was proud to sign up to the campaign launched by Gina Martin to change the law so that the disgraceful practice of so-called upskirting is made a specific sexual offence. So will the Minister finally join with us today in backing this call for a change in the law?

David Lidington: I have taken very seriously the representations made not only by Gina Martin, but by some of the police and crime commissioners around the country. I have asked for detailed advice on this, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that, before proceeding to a commitment to legislation, I want to be absolutely certain that this would be the right course  to take.

Luke Hall: Legal services in the UK are rightly held in the highest regard around the world and are a major asset to our economy. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we champion and defend the interests of the legal sector in this country?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: legal services exports contribute a trade surplus of £3.4 billion to the UK economy. The UK is a global leader in dispute settlement. We are working with the sector to promote this key comparative advantage. It is a priority for the Brexit negotiations, and, as a global leader, this is the message my ministerial colleague Lord Keen will be taking to the International Bar Association conference in Australia just next month.

Brendan O'Hara: Last week a report from the committee of the United Nations made 60 recommendations to the Government on how they could better comply with the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. How will the Government respond, and what changes in Government policy can disabled people expect to see as a result?

David Lidington: It is obviously for the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), and the Department for Work and Pensions to decide overall on the Government response to that report. However, I think that the Government were right to express disappointment that the report failed to acknowledge the significant advances this Government have made in improving the lot of disabled people in this country, not least in seeing a record number of people with disabilities now in employment.

David Morris: What upgrades have been achieved in prisons since we came into office, and how are we going to rehabilitate prisoners even further?

Sam Gyimah: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the upgrades in the prison estate, where we are investing £1.3 billion to modernise the estate. As part of that, we will be building 10,000 modern prison places. That should help with offender rehabilitation. In terms of where we are now, we have started with the proposed developments at Glen Parva and HMP Wellingborough, and we have also announced plans to build four new prisons: in Yorkshire, adjacent to Full Sutton, at Port Talbot in Wales, and the redevelopment of the young offender institutions at Rochester and Hindley.

Daniel Zeichner: Given the problems the Department has had when it has privatised many of its services, it seems extraordinary that there are now plans to privatise the collection of court fines and outsource the work of civil enforcement officers. When will the Government appreciate that the public expect these sensitive public services to be delivered by the public, not a bunch of cowboys?

Dominic Raab: What the public expect is for those fines to be collected in the most efficient and effective way possible.

Paul Scully: Can the Minister update me on when the revised version of practice direction 12J will be adopted and how the Government will ensure that judges and magistrates are aware of the change in order to improve guidance for judges overseeing child contact cases with allegations of domestic abuse?

Dominic Raab: We are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to improve the treatment of victims in the justice system. In relation to the practice direction to which my hon. Friend refers, we expect to receive the revised version from the president of the family division for ministerial agreement by the end of this month.

Ellie Reeves: Since the election, hundreds of constituents have contacted me about our current animal cruelty laws, which are not fit for purpose. A maximum prison sentence of six months for some of the most appalling crimes, including torturing a dog to death, is completely unacceptable. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the sentencing guidelines are rigorously reviewed and strengthened?

Dominic Raab: I share the hon. Lady’s desire to see the most robust sentences for animal cruelty. The Government keep the sentencing framework under regular review, and I am not sure whether she is aware that in January the Sentencing Council published new guidelines on relevant aggravating factors in animal cruelty cases.

Alex Chalk: In the past 18 months, three of my constituents have died in HMP Bristol, which has one of the highest numbers of self-inflicted deaths in custody. What reassurance can be provided that that prison is being given the scrutiny and support that it needs to get those figures down?

Sam Gyimah: Every death in custody is a tragedy, and I offer my condolences to the families of my hon. Friend’s constituents. We have increased the staffing level at HMP Bristol by 31 prison officers in the past year. I chair a weekly safer custody meeting with officials to drive forward improvements, and I review the details of every self-inflicted death to see how we might prevent others. We have also launched an internal review of our approach to safer custody, specifically in relation to mental health patients, and I would be willing to visit my hon. Friend’s prison in order to deal with this further.

Carol Monaghan: Last week, a Tory peer said that Brexit was a good thing because our young people would be able to work longer hours. Can the Minister confirm that his Government will continue to guarantee protections for workers in accordance with the European working time directive?

David Lidington: The Prime Minister could not have been clearer: we are committed to the best possible employment conditions for all British workers. We have  a fine record of achievement on that, and we will ensure that when we leave the EuropeanUnion, there is no diminution in workers’ rights.

Henry Smith: In January last year, an Afghan national who had previously served time for murder in the Netherlands attacked two Crawley police officers with a clawhammer. Recently, the Court of Appeal has reduced his sentence. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Sussex Police Federation’s requests to the Home Office will ensure that he is deported at the earliest opportunity?

David Lidington: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that the views of the Police Federation and others in his constituency will be conveyed fully to the Home Office. It remains the Government’s collective will to ensure that those foreign national offenders who merit deportation are deported as soon as possible after serving their sentence.

David Linden: Is the Minister aware that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has recommended that the protections afforded by the EU charter of fundamental rights be retained in the UK? What is he going to do about that?

Dominic Raab: I am always bewildered by the approach of the Opposition to the charter. When Labour was in power, it claimed, rather fraudulently, that it was seeking an opt-out, but now that it is out of office and we are leaving the EU, it wants to opt back in. We have the strongest protections for human rights in this country, and they have been reinforced. We are going to see no diminution in those protections, but the charter adds uncertainty and is frankly surplus to requirements.

John Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend agree that the pilot scheme that allowed the filming of judges’ sentencing remarks in criminal courts has been a success? Will he now consider going further in allowing the broadcasting of court proceedings, so that justice is not just done but seen to be done?

Dominic Raab: We have made considerable progress in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, and my right hon. Friend is right to say that one of the areas under review is the broadcasting of judges’ sentencing remarks in the Crown Court. Last year, we conducted not-for-broadcast tests in eight Crown Court centres, and we are looking at the experience from those trials with the judiciary in order to see how best to proceed.

Paul Williams: Last year, 316 people died in our prisons. Emails from prison doctors printed in the media a few days ago say that there are not enough medical staff in our prisons and that urgent hospital referrals are being cancelled because of prison escort shortages. What are the Justice Secretary and the Health Secretary planning to do to tackle this growing healthcare crisis in custody?

Sam Gyimah: We are very conscious that the Government have a duty of care to everyone we hold in custody. We are working with the Department of Health on a number of protocols, including some relating to mental health, as well as working to ensure that prisoners get access to the healthcare that they need, when they need it.

Fiona Bruce: Will Ministers give the House their response to Lord Farmer’s recent report on the importance of strengthening prisoners’ family ties to reduce reoffending?

Sam Gyimah: Lord Farmer’s report is excellent. Family ties are important not only to helping people to turn their lives around, but also to improve stability in prisons. We will publish our response in due course and will make the House aware of that.

Thangam Debbonaire: While I welcome the Minister’s news about increased prison officer numbers in HMP Bristol in my constituency, I am concerned by the Department’s figures, which show that 1,770 experienced prison officers left the service last year. What is the Minister doing urgently to retain valuable experienced prison officers for the longer term?

Sam Gyimah: It is always the case that people will leave an organisation voluntarily or due to retirement or—[Interruption.] May I finish my point? In some cases, people may leave because they have not been too happy with what has been happening in our Prison Service. A retention plan is available, but the numbers that I gave earlier—868 net new prison officers so far this year—take account of people leaving the service, so we are actually up on last year’s figures.

Esther McVey: Having recently met the governor of Styal prison in my constituency, I know that drones are an increasing problem in prisons, as is the illegal use of mobile phones. The two are linked together because mobile phones allow for greater frequency and accuracy of drone activity. Does the Minister agree that the way to curb drone activity and stop illegal mobile phone use is to block phone signals in prison? Will he support my private Member’s Bill to do that? The Second Reading is on 1 December.

Sam Gyimah: I fully support my right hon. Friend’s Bill. It is what we need to deal with the illegal use of mobile phones, which are used to carry on criminal activity from behind bars.

Stephen Kinnock: The Minister’s plans to build a prison on the Baglan industrial park in my constituency are causing a huge amount of concern and disquiet within the community. May I urge the Minister to come to the public meeting that I have organised on 20 September in Baglan to explain the position to the community?

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman is aware that Ministers do not attend public consultation events about obtaining planning permission for new prisons. He is also aware that the Port Talbot site was proposed alongside several other sites by the Welsh Government, who continue to support us in redeveloping the site for the purpose of the new prison. I have received his representations on the behalf of his constituents—he is diligent and persistent—and we also had a meeting on 12 July. Subject to the two-day consultation, which is more than would ordinarily happen, I am willing to engage further with him on what could be done to ameliorate his constituents’ concerns.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. We often have time for the questions but rather less time for the answers, which tend to take up rather more time.

Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State look at how families are treated by the insurance industry when a householder gets a criminal conviction? The Salvation Army recently highlighted several cases in which insurance has either been denied or made prohibitively expensive in a way that seems to me, as a former chartered insurer, to be neither reasonable nor necessary.

David Lidington: I am happy to look at that and would welcome a conversation with my hon. Friend to examine the matter further.

John Bercow: With exemplary brevity, Ann Clwyd.

Ann Clwyd: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the historical child abuse in north Wales, will Ministers now place in the Library the unredacted copy of Lady Macur’s report on the Waterhouse inquiry, which relates to many of the children involved?

David Lidington: The honest answer is that I am not familiar with the detail as to why an unredacted copy has not been published, but I will undertake to ask for urgent advice on that and will write to the right hon. Lady.

John Bercow: I will call the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) if he confines himself to a short sentence.

Bob Neill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, who will have retired by the next Justice questions, both for his integrity as a judge and for his modernising work as head of the judiciary in England and Wales?

David Lidington: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in his salute to Lord Thomas, who has been a formidable and exemplary leader of the professional judiciary. What has struck me in the short time that I have held my office is the enormous respect and affection in which Lord Thomas is held by his colleagues on the judicial bench. I am sure the entire House will want to wish him all the best.

Helen Jones: In the last Parliament, a joint report of the Petitions Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee found widespread exploitation of women at work, and especially of young women in vulnerable employment. Now that  the barrier of fees has been removed, will the Minister look seriously at the report’s recommendations and work with other Departments to ensure that women are aware of their access to justice?

Dominic Raab: As I explained earlier, we will take into account all the recommendations and findings of the Select Committee report as we chart the way forward.

Julian Lewis: Did the Secretary of State read the letter in the press by the widow of our late colleague, Ian Gow, contrasting the fact that the two IRA murderers suspected of killing him have no fear of arrest with the recent revelation that hundreds, if not thousands, of letters are being sent out to veterans of the troubles with a view to further prosecutions? Will he support the policy of a statute of limitations to put an end to this grotesque inequality of treatment?

David Lidington: The answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is that, yes, I did read the letter to which he refers. Those matters, as he knows, are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is very concerned to ensure that a proper examination of the past, and a search for the truth about the past, does not lead to the unfair and disproportionate arraignment of British soldiers who stood firmly for democracy and human rights in Northern Ireland.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I am afraid that we are well out of time, but we will hear Shabana Mahmood.

Shabana Mahmood: The Minister will be aware of the serious disorder at HMP Birmingham in my constituency on Sunday, which follows the very serious riot in December 2016 and serious incidents at other prisons across the country over the summer months. Clearly our prisons are in absolute crisis. Is it not time that we had an independent inquiry into the state of our prisons?

Sam Gyimah: We have already said that the level of violence in our prisons is too high. I spoke to the Gold Commander at HMP Birmingham on Sunday night, and we should first praise the professionalism of the Prison Service in dealing with what are very difficult and very challenging situations in our prisons. Of course, a key part of dealing with the stability and security problem in our prisons is increasing the staffing levels, on which there has been a number of questions today, and we are doing so. A wider part of the reforms is dealing with drones, mobile phones and illegal drugs, and it will take time to do that, but I praise our prison officers for their brave work in containing these disturbances.

VIOLENCE IN RAKHINE STATE

Yasmin Qureshi: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent violence in the Rakhine state of Myanmar.

Mark Field: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for raising this matter and giving the Government the opportunity to detail the significant action we have taken. Overnight on 24 August, members of the Rohingya militant group the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army—the ARSA—attacked numerous police posts in northern Rakhine. Even in the days prior to that escalation of hostilities, our embassy in Rangoon had been monitoring the situation very carefully, including travelling to the Rakhine state capital, Sittwe. We understand that tens of thousands of people have crossed the border into Bangladesh.
Kofi Annan’s Rakhine advisory commission report was published immediately prior to the attacks. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and I issued a joint statement at that time welcoming the report, but also condemning the attacks by Rohingya militants on Burmese security forces. At the same time, the UK strongly urged the security forces in Rakhine to show restraint and called for all parties to de-escalate the tensions.
On 30 August, at the UK’s request, the UN Security Council discussed the situation in Rakhine. Our UK representative in New York led the condemnation of attacks by Rohingya militants, and urged a measured and proportionate response from the security forces. We also called for humanitarian aid to reach those in need as soon as possible and offered UK support for the Rakhine advisory commission, encouraging the international community to do likewise. The recent violence serves to underline how important it is to address the long-term issues in Rakhine and deliver for all communities; it should not deflect the Burmese Government from the key task of addressing the underlying issues that have caused people to flee. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, it is vital that the civilian Government of Burma receive the support of the Burmese military, and that Aung San Suu Kyi is not thwarted in her attempts to stabilise the situation.
Along with de-escalating the fighting, our immediate priority is how urgent food and medical assistance can be provided to displaced citizens from all communities. Our ambassador in Rangoon has rightly been lobbying the Burmese Government on that, and they have confirmed that they are trying to get humanitarian aid through to communities most in need. As many will know, that is being hampered by the security situation and by inter-communal tensions.
Our high commissioner in Dhaka, Bangladesh, has also discussed the increasingly acute humanitarian situation with the Government there, and I discussed the situation with the Bangladeshi high commissioner last week. I look forward to discussing these issues further tomorrow at a meeting arranged some weeks ago with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), the co-chair of the all-party group on Burma, as well as to paying a ministerial visit to Burma in the near future.

Yasmin Qureshi: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I am a little disappointed by the Minister’s response, as he started by suggesting that somehow the Rohingya Muslims and these people had caused this to occur. He must be aware that for a number of years there has been the systematic rape, murder, burning and beheading of people from the Rohingya community. If it is suggested that there may have been some attacks on the police stations, that is not a sufficient reason to attempt almost to explain away what the Burmese Government are now doing to these people. Everyone knows that for years now that the Government, the security forces and the Buddhist monks have been ransacking and killing people—murdering and raping women and children. This is only a climax to the brutality that the Burmese have been carrying out against these people.
Is the Minister aware that because of what has happened recently, many young children have been beheaded and civilians have been burned alive by the military forces? Is he aware that 120,000 Rohingya have fled for their lives to Bangladesh? Will he actually condemn this campaign of ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims? Is he aware that Human Rights Watch has satellite imagery showing the destruction of entire Rohingya villages, and that there are reports of people there being rounded up into huts and burned alive? Recent reports also show a massive cover-up by the soldiers who have carried out massacres of Rohingya, by gathering their bodies up and burning them.
This is one of the worst outbreaks of violence in decades, yet the international community is, in effect, remaining silent as we watch another Srebrenica and Rwanda unfold before our eyes. Does the Minister agree that the situation requires urgent intervention? What concrete action have the Government and the Prime Minister taken to date to deal with it? Is he aware that UN aid and monitors have not been allowed in? Will the Government make further representations to the UN Security Council about the ethnic cleansing now taking place? Can consideration be given to an immediate intervention by the UN Security Council to deal with this situation? As journalist Peter Oborne said in this morning’s Daily Mail:
“The Rohingya people were loyal allies of Britain in World War II. Now they face their darkest hour.”
We must take immediate action to help them, and I am very sorry about, and disappointed in, the Minister’s starting response.

Mark Field: I am sorry that the hon. Lady is so disappointed; had she heard what I had to say, it would have been clear that we have been monitoring this situation for some time. Indeed, through diplomatic sources, we have made sure that our heartfelt concerns have been heard. It was thanks to a British lead that the issue was discussed at the UN over the past week. One has to remember that obviously a huge amount of attention has been given to issues relating to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which the House will discuss later.
The hon. Lady asked precisely what we are now doing. It is worth pointing out some aspects of the humanitarian aid we are going to put in place. As she is well aware, the UK has rightly and proudly been one of the largest development and humanitarian donors to Burma, and particularly to the Rakhine state, over many years.  Since 2012, the Department for International Development has provided more than £30 million in humanitarian assistance, including for food and sanitation, for more than 126,000 people. More important, given the unfolding situation, the UK is the largest single bilateral donor supporting displaced Rohingya refugees and the vulnerable communities that host them in Bangladesh. DFID has allocated some £20.9 million for humanitarian aid responses between 2017 and 2022.
Because of the acute nature of the problems, to which the hon. Lady referred, we will keep an eye on exactly what happens. Please rest assured that the Government will do all they can to condemn when condemnation is the right way forward, but she is well aware that the politics of Burma are incredibly tense and difficult. We have hopefully moved away from a 55-year period of military rule. As far as we can, the international community should support civilian rule under Aung San Suu Kyi.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. There is substantial interest in this question, which I am keen—up to a point—to accommodate, but colleagues will be aware that there are three ministerial statements to follow, in which there can be expected to be substantial interest. Colleagues from Back and Front Benches alike need to help me to help them. There will be a premium upon brevity, now to be brilliantly exemplified by Mr Tom Tugendhat.

Thomas Tugendhat: How is my right hon. Friend’s relationship with China going? As we all remember, the Chinese influence in the seeking of a peace agreement in some of the northern areas of Burma was instrumental in delivering humanitarian effects like those we wish to achieve in the Rakhine state. Will he say a little more about the Bangladeshi Government, and perhaps praise them for their extraordinary work in welcoming so many Muslim Rohingya people? I welcome the Foreign Office’s efforts in supporting that work.

Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I was in Beijing only 10 days ago; he will appreciate that attention was focused largely on the DPRK and, to an extent, issues relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan. I suspect we will have a chance before too long to discuss the issues relating to Burma with counterparts in China. I echo my hon. Friend’s words about the Bangladeshi authorities, with whom I had a strong relationship as a member and officer of the all-party group on Bangladesh for some seven years before I took up ministerial office. He is absolutely right that a terrific amount of work has taken place, and it will continue to take place in what is a fraught situation.

Liz McInnes: The vast majority of Rohingyas want nothing but peace, but it is they who have suffered most as a result of the violence committed, supposedly in their name, by a small number of armed militants. Because of so-called collective punishment for such attacks, more than 100,000 innocent Rohingya men, women and children have been forced to flee their homes in a campaign that UN officials say may amount to ethnic cleansing. Many displaced Rohingyas have ended up in squalid camps,  and, according to UN figures published today, some 35,000 have fled across the border to Bangladesh in the past 24 hours alone. There, and in Myanmar itself, these families are in desperate need of our aid.
I am sure the Minister will share the deep disappointment of many Members of this House at the failure of Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto leader of Myanmar’s civilian Government, to speak out more forcefully against human rights abuses in Rakhine. It is, though, General Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of Myanmar’s armed forces, who of course bears ultimate responsibility for the army’s atrocities. It is he who ultimately must be held to account.
The Minister must do more than express disappointment, important though that is. The Government must do everything they can to help to bring an end to this senseless violence. Ministers must set clear and unambiguous red lines for Myanmar’s authorities—civilian and military—when it comes to respecting human rights. If those red lines are crossed, there should be consequences. For instance, in the light of recent events, it seems wholly inappropriate that in the past three years this Government have sold weapons worth more than half a million pounds to the Government of Myanmar.
Will the Minister now accept that his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence demonstrated shockingly poor judgment in spending a quarter of a million pounds—from the aid budget no less—on training members of Myanmar’s army? Will he also accept that it was a serious error of judgment for the Minister of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), to say by way of explanation that such programmes ensure that other countries learn about British values and human rights?
Does the Minister agree that it simply cannot be right for Britain to continue to provide military aid to a country where human rights abuses are so rampant? If he accepts that, will he demonstrate his Government’s commitment to the Rohingya people by immediately suspending military aid until Myanmar’s army can demonstrate that it is both able and willing to protect the rights of all the country’s citizens?

Mark Field: I thank the hon. Lady for her heartfelt comments. Those issues, which are clearly for the Ministry of Defence, will be under review, and I will ensure that her comments are passed on and that she is kept up to date. Contrary to some of the press reports, I think it is important to clarify precisely what the UK does provide. We do not provide any form of combat training to the Burmese military. The UK provides vocational courses, focused on language training, governance, accountability, ethics, human rights and international law. The UK rightly believes in using elements of our DFID money on programmes of real and lasting change. Such change will only come about from engaging with the Burmese military. Exposing them to how modern militaries operate in a democracy is more effective than isolating them. The content of the educational courses that we provide—the hon. Lady referred to a quarter of a million pounds—complies entirely with the UK’s commitments under the EU arms embargo.

Hugo Swire: There is more that the Government can do as a convening force, bringing together the countries that are involved with  the Rohingya. There are problems not just in Rakhine or in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh, but with the hideous trafficking of the Rohingya people down through Thailand and into Malaysia. Given the goodwill that we have in Bangladesh and Burma and, to a lesser extent, in Thailand and Malaysia, will the Foreign Office consider convening a meeting to look at this issue and at how we can improve the lives of these people?

Mark Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for his words. I know that he, having held the post that I now hold, has a lot of knowledge of the area. As I pointed out in my initial comments, after the violence broke out on 25 August, the UK, as a matter of urgency, spoke out and took a lead not just in issuing statements but in ensuring that we had a UN Security Council discussion on 30 August—at a time when the UN was looking at other matters. He is absolutely right to suggest that this situation must be looked at in the context of Malaysia and of other neighbouring states in the region, and not just in the context of Bangladesh. Our ambassador has lobbied the Burmese Government, and our high commission in Dhaka has also discussed the situation with the Government of Bangladesh. We will continue to keep a close eye on developments. I hope that we can do that partly through the UN and other international bodies. My right hon. Friend’s suggestion that the UK brings things together is something that, uniquely, we have some authority to do. I hope that we shall do so if there is any escalation of the situation in the weeks ahead.

Chris Law: The recent violence in Rakhine state and the long-standing persecution of the Rohingya are appalling and must end immediately. In the past two weeks alone, some 120,000 refugees have fled the violence in Rakhine state, and the two main UN camps in Bangladesh are now overflowing. We ask the Government and the military of Myanmar to remove all restrictions on entry to Rakhine state for the media, aid agencies and non-governmental organisations, as the world must be allowed to see what is happening and to help people in need.
While attacks by Rohingya militants are not to be condoned, the Government and military of Myanmar have a responsibility to protect civilians in all communities from violence and displacement, and they must begin to do so immediately. Will the Minister therefore make a commitment to work immediately with the UN and the Bangladeshi Government to provide urgent aid, food and water to refugees both inside and outside the camps?

Mark Field: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. He will appreciate that I have already touched on some of the issues in relation to Bangladesh.
I, too, am concerned on behalf of the UK Government that Burma has dissociated itself from elements of the fact-finding mission to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Following the last set of attacks in October 2016, the UK co-sponsored a resolution at the Human Rights Council setting up a fact-finding mission to look into the human rights situation in Burma. We will continue forcefully to urge Burma to co-operate with the mission and its mandate, and as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the more the world sees what is going on, particularly on the border of Bangladesh and Burma, the more urgent attention we can give to the Burmese authorities to ensure that this terrible humanitarian crisis comes to a close at the earliest opportunity.

Paul Scully: We must acknowledge the wrongdoings of the minority armed group, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, but the disproportionate response has escalated violence and enflamed a long-running human rights problem. It has also left other states such as Bangladesh, as we have heard, to carry a significant burden. Does the Minister agree that we should recognise the pivotal role that Aung San Suu Kyi plays in bringing democracy to what remains a fragile country, but if we are ever to get back to talking about democratic structures, trade, healthcare and education in that country we need a long-standing solution that will work to bring the human rights crisis to an end, so that the Rohingya Muslims can live peacefully? Will the Minister outline what we are doing, so that we can cope without UK aid for the increasing numbers of people who are fleeing to Bangladesh?

Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he does, both as an officer of the all-party group on Burma and for Bangladesh. He will be aware that the 2008 constitution in Burma grants the military 25% of seats in Parliament as well as control of defence, border affairs and home affairs Ministries. That situation has entrenched the role of the security forces since the coup in 1962 and makes it difficult for life to have any normality as we understand it. In that context, we have to recognise the amazingly courageous behaviour of leader Aung San Suu Kyi. I can understand the disappointment of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), but we have to look at this in the context of Aung San Suu Kyi trying to play a role that has made life better for many Burmese citizens—not, I accept, for the Rohingya population down in the south-west.
Imagine the situation if there were another coup d’état and Aung San Suu Kyi was removed from the scene and we went back to fully fledged military rule. That would be a calamitous outcome for the Burmese people. We need to do all that we can to support the moves, slow as they are, towards some sort of democracy as we would understand it in Burma. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) rightly said, the role of Aung San Suu Kyi and her international standing is critical in ensuring that some sort of normality comes to pass in the years to come.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the Minister’s remarks, because it is incongruous and incomprehensible that Aung San Suu Kyi, for so long a beacon for human rights, has not stepped in to intervene in the face of an horrendous military crackdown that has burned down 17 villages and left 250,000 people without access to food. What is his assessment of the power struggles between the Burmese Government and the military, and how can we best help those who wish to uphold human rights to gain the upper hand?

Mark Field: I thank the hon. Lady for her words. As she says, the one person many British folk with relatively little knowledge or experience of Burma remember is Aung San Suu Kyi, so they are dismayed. It is worth pointing out the sectarian complexities of Burmese society, along with the lack of democracy as we would understand it for over five decades, as that plays an important role in the concerns that the hon. Lady has expressed.
After the most recent escalation in Rakhine state, a number of statements were released by the Burmese information office. I have to say that these were not released with the consent of, or directly by, Aung San Suu Kyi. The information office is run by a former military officer. We understand that the State Counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, has now removed her name from that office. That gives some indication of the level of tensions and the complexity of what is going on in Burma.

Crispin Blunt: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on the tone and manner of her question, associate myself with the direction of her interrogation of the Minister and gently say how disappointed I was with the Minister’s tone, which sounded pretty close to dumping the blame for this ethnic cleansing on the victim community? Will he say a little more about our expectations of Aung San Suu Kyi, who is leading a Government and military forces who are associated with behaviour that is utterly unacceptable by any standard at all?

Mark Field: I am sorry that my hon. Friend chooses to use the opportunity to grandstand in the way that he does—[Interruption.] The House has voted on that matter already, as we know. As far as this matter is concerned, we have made it very clear that we feel that Aung San Suu Kyi and her Government need to step up to the plate. We are not in any way forgiving or understanding of the terrible violence and its impact. It is worth pointing out that the entrenched security forces, including the army, police and border guard force, are responsible for the security operations that are currently under way in Rakhine state. We have made that absolutely clear. We will support Burma’s ongoing transition from military dictatorship to a civilian-led democracy. This is very much an ongoing process, led by the democratically elected Aung San Suu Kyi.

Stephen Twigg: The appalling persecution of the Rohingya is longstanding and well documented. I concur with the remarks of the former Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt); I was very disappointed with the statement made in response to the urgent question.
I have two questions for the Minister. On aid, reports today suggest that 30,000 Rohingyas are stranded in the mountains between Bangladesh and Burma. What is being done to address that in practical terms? There has to be a political solution in the long term. Does the Minister agree with the Nobel laureate, Malala, who yesterday appealed to Aung San Suu Kyi, saying that the citizenship of Myanmar has to be given to the Rohingya, so that they cease to be stateless people?

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman will recognise just how complicated the situation with the Rohingya is. I suspect that the matter has been in his in-tray throughout his time as Chair of the Select Committee on International Development. In fairness, we are trying our best to get reliable information on the ground, which is difficult, as he will appreciate. We understand that 123,000 people have fled from Burma into Bangladesh. He may well be right that there are tens of thousands more in some halfway house, not able to make their way but desperate to do so.
I have tried to point out that we are not standing by innocently. We are doing all we can. In many ways, Britain has taken a lead at the UN, which will ultimately be the body that will have to deal, to a large extent, with elements of this humanitarian crisis. It is also worth pointing out that we have to be realistic about the manner in which the UN operates. The Security Council will require a unanimous vote or at least no veto. It is very difficult to see how, even within the P5, we would be able to get that for the reasons alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat).
These are difficult issues. We have done all we can and will continue to do so on the ground in Rangoon and—probably even more importantly in the months and years ahead—in Dhaka. We will do our bit and more to ensure that the humanitarian aspects of this crisis are kept to an absolute minimum.

Nusrat Ghani: Over 120,000 Rohingyas have been displaced and 17 villages have been torched, with thousands of deaths. Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that Aung San Suu Kyi is yet to live up to her Nobel peace prize, call out what is fast becoming a genocide and assist Rohingyas fleeing persecution?

Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I have tried to explain the situation as it applies to statements that were put out in Aung San Suu Kyi’s name that did not reflect her views on these matters. As I have said, there is disappointment for many people; there was a sense that the moment Aung San Suu Kyi came into office—only a year ago—somehow everything would be transformed. The issues in Burma are, I am afraid, considerably more complex than that. It is vital that we do as much as we can to support Aung San Suu Kyi and the transition—slow as it may be—towards a fully fledged democracy. There remains a huge amount of good will for her work, which will be critical if we are to get any sort of resolution to these terrible events in the months ahead.

Catherine West: In the Minister’s last conversation with the trade envoy to Burma, did he raise the humanitarian crisis?

Mark Field: I thank the hon. Lady. Yes, I did. Obviously, this is a fluid situation. The trade envoy will be heading out to Burma again before too long, as well as to other parts of the world. Let us be honest about it: as far as Burma is concerned, the issues around trade are entirely secondary to the humanitarian issues to which she referred. It is perfectly legitimate for those on the Opposition Front Bench to make the statements they did about past trade in weaponry and the like, but, equally, we are now in a very different, much more critical humanitarian situation. The hon. Lady can rest assured that, as far as our diplomats on both sides of the Bangladesh-Burma border are concerned, the focus will be exclusively on humanitarian rather than trade issues.

Rehman Chishti: I raise this as a genuine point to the Minister. Having looked at civilian transitions from military Governments in other parts of the world, will he say today whether, according to his moral conscience, Aung San Suu Kyi has done enough to challenge the mass murder of Rohingyas in Burma?

Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The truth of the matter is that we do not know precisely what is going on. That is one of the difficulties about Burmese society and the complexities around the Burmese political and military situation. Just what is happening out there is difficult to gauge. I have obviously spoken to our ambassador in Rangoon. He has reassured me that representations are being made on a regular basis. My understanding from what he has said is that the concerns my hon. Friend pointed out are being felt in the very highest ranks of the Burmese Government. So there is no suggestion, to my mind at least, that Aung San Suu Kyi has been guilty of anything other than keeping a very close eye on what is a desperate situation. However, the notion that she has full control over what happens in the military, particularly down in Rakhine, is, I am afraid, a long way from the reality of the situation in Burma and Burmese politics.

Angela Smith: I participated in the induction programme for the new Parliament last year, and I appreciate the challenges facing Burma as it transitions towards democracy. I also appreciate the efforts made by the UK Government and Parliament—let us not overlook its role—in supporting that democratic development. Surely, though, it is vital that the UK Government and this Parliament continually restate their belief that citizenship for the Rohingya is an essential part of that transition.

Mark Field: I thank the hon. Lady for her words. Prior to taking on this role, I was vice-chairman for international affairs in the Conservative party and worked with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and although I did not specifically do work myself in Burma, I am well aware that a lot of work goes on in a cross-party, integrated programme. Yes, I accept that the citizenship issue is live. As the hon. Lady will be well aware, the sectarian divisions are very pronounced in that part of the world. As many will know, there was a suggestion that when Burma was formed in the aftermath of the second world war or when Bangladesh was formed in 1971, the Rohingya, as ethnic Bengalis, should have been in that part of the world. I fear that all those are very live issues in Burmese politics. They are very complicated issues for us to entirely make a judgment on, but that is not to say that there will not be an open debate on them from our diplomats on the ground.

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that it must be difficult to get reliable and accurate information on the ground, in which case his offer of a ministerial visit should come sooner rather than later. When he goes, will he make sure that he visits both sides of the border, with a particular emphasis on following the DFID aid stream to satisfy himself that our aid is getting to where it is needed?

Mark Field: Yes, I am obviously keen to see on the ground what is happening throughout Burma but also Bangladesh, which is a country I know well. I should perhaps point out that the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), is the Minister with DFID responsibilities in this regard. He visited only a matter of a few weeks ago and saw  what was happening before the latest outbreak of inter-communal ethnic violence. He has been confident that there has been a positive flow of DFID money for a whole range of different projects, both in Bangladesh and in Burma. A lot of the DFID money that is spent, and will continue to be spent, in that regard is on much broader infrastructure and other projects that are going to make life better for all Burmese. That is not for one minute to say that we should not be focusing attention now on some humanitarian aid, but there is a huge amount of aid that this country can rightly be proud of in that part of the world that is making life better, and will do so for all citizens, for the decades to come.

Afzal Khan: Despite the extensive support— economic, cultural and political—that we have given to the Myanmar Government, we are now seeing that the Rohingya community is in danger of genocide. Does the Minister agree that we need to ask that Government for three things? First, the Government security forces need to be brought under control. Secondly, the aid organisations need to have free access there. Thirdly, the key thing is that the Rohingya need to be recognised as full citizens of Burma.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman’s comments will be passed on; they will be heard not just here but in Rangoon. We are making representations at diplomatic level. It is difficult, given the political situation there, to make demands, in the way that he perhaps suggests, about the role or otherwise of the military, or indeed any demands about Rohingya citizenship. However, he can rest assured that the concerns addressed to this House today will be made very clear.

Mary Creagh: You will be aware, Mr Speaker, of the Burmese army’s six-year campaign against the Rohingya Muslims in Kachin and Rakhine provinces, during which 100,000 civilians have already been forced to flee their homes under very repressive laws and are unable to work freely. The UN has said that war crimes have been committed, yet nobody has been held accountable. This looks like the ethnic cleansing that is the precursor to genocide, with stateless citizens who cannot be counted and therefore their bodies cannot be counted either. We need our Foreign Secretary and the Minister to say unequivocally that we want full humanitarian access, that we want the violence to end and that we want to end the culture of impunity that allows these people to be murdered and nobody brought to justice.

Mark Field: I concur with the hon. Lady. As well as the condemnation to which she refers, we will do our best to get that message across through the international community. One hopes that not just British Ministers but Ministers from across the globe will make that clear, on a bilateral basis but also at the UN. Any judgment on whether crimes under international law have occurred is evidently a matter for judicial determination rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. We will continue, however, to call for an end to the violence and to prevent escalation, irrespective of whether incidents fit the definition of specific international crimes to which she referred.

Tom Pursglove: I note the significant humanitarian aid that the Minister has set out, but will the Government continue to urge foreign Governments to follow suit?

Mark Field: We work in partnership through the UN and through other international bodies. It is worth pointing out that we should be proud of our own expenditure, particularly in that part of the world. Bangladesh is a member of the Commonwealth and Burma was at one time part of India, so there are long-standing connections between our countries. Although one hopes that the international community will also take on some of the burden, we recognise through our DFID commitments that we have particular responsibilities and connections in that part of the world. Although I hope that we will do a lot on an international basis, I do not think we should be frightened by the fact that Britain may well, initially, very much take the lead in humanitarian aid.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: We need to appreciate that the sustained discrimination against, and killing of, Rohingya Muslims has been ongoing for years. To their credit, Bangladesh and other nations have attempted to accommodate and assist Rohingya refugees. Surely, the de facto leader of Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi, of all people, should respect the rights of all, especially minorities. Extraordinary respect and honour were accorded to her by our Parliament for her own long struggle for democracy. Has the Minister reminded her of this, and of the urgent need to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in her country? Will the Minister also confirm whether the Myanmar Government will be taking any positive steps openly to encourage the Rohingya back to their own country?

Mark Field: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his heartfelt comments. He will appreciate that the diplomatic process means that a lot of attention is being paid in Burma to the nature of the debate; that is probably unique among other Parliaments in which there is a passion for issues concerning Burma. To be fair, it is too early to talk in terms of commitments about Rohingya being brought back to Burma at any point. One issue will be whether many of them wish to return to Burma, even once the situation begins to stabilise. He will forgive me if I say that this is something to which we will return at a future stage.

John Bercow: I am keen to accommodate colleagues, but there is a premium on single questions. I look for a rapier inquiry to that intellectual colossus from Newham, Mr Stephen Timms.

Stephen Timms: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister urge the Government of Myanmar to review—or, preferably, repeal—the 1982 citizenship law so that Rohingya Muslims can be granted citizenship of the country where they have always lived?

Mark Field: This is a live debate, and we will continue to make representations such as that which the right hon. Gentleman has made. He is well aware of the difficulties that face us in our relationship with Burma, which will regard this as largely an internal matter. It is not for us to dictate that on an international agenda,  but his voice has been heard loud and clear, and this is not the only time that such an issue has been raised. We will do our level best to make sure that, apart from anything else, Bangladeshi citizens who live on the border are properly represented.

Jim Shannon: Some 90,000 Rohingya are estimated to have fled to Bangladesh. What help can the Minister give to the displaced who now live in the open and in forests, without tents or food? Bangladesh cannot afford to keep them and wishes them to leave.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that DFID is already the biggest single donor of bilateral aid to Bangladesh. We will continue to do as much work as we can, without in any way prejudicing important existing projects, particularly infrastructure projects, which have been under way for some time. He can rest assured that we have significant equities and significant expertise on the ground, particularly around the Cox’s Bazar area, which is the district adjacent to the Burmese border. I very much hope that those will come into play, and I suspect that that work is already going on as we speak.

Stella Creasy: May I press the Minister further on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)? The Minister says it is very difficult to find out what is going on in Burma, but is it so difficult or is it that we do not believe the reports? I have a report from the Burma Human Rights Network, which specifies that 30,000 Rohingya are trapped on the hillsides in Tha Win Chaung and Inn Din near Maungdaw township. These people are trapped without food, water and medicine. What is the Minister doing to find out what is going on? Frankly, if 30,000 people are trapped in such a situation, they cannot await a ministerial visit.

Mark Field: No one was suggesting that knowing about such a situation would be dependent on a ministerial visit. We are working on the ground, but we do need to verify the facts. I accept what the hon. Lady says and there is no sense of disbelief in what an NGO says—NGOs on the ground are working hard, including with DFID and other parts of the UK Government apparatus—but we need to verify the facts before making such statements. However, she should rest assured that a significant amount of work is going on, on both sides of the Burmese-Bangladeshi border, as we speak.

Tony Lloyd: When the Minister has finally clarified the facts, will he condemn as genocide what everybody else believes to be genocide? What is the value of having a democratic dialogue if the result is the persecution and massacre of a whole group of people?

Mark Field: As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, our immediate priority has been to establish the facts, but it has also been to ensure that we provide urgent food and medical assistance to as many displaced citizens as we can. As I say, we are at the forefront of that.
On making any judgment about whether crimes have occurred under international law—this goes back to the issue discussed earlier—that is really a matter for judicial determination, not something that we should condemn  here as politicians. Whether that is done through the UN—through a UN Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court, for example—lies some steps ahead. None the less, this must ultimately be a legal, rather than a political, intervention. As a P5 Member of the United Nations, we have obviously taken that particular aspect very seriously. As I pointed out in my initial comments, over a week ago we began the process of asking the UN to take seriously the issues that I fear have only deteriorated further in the past few days.

Kate Hoey: The Minister keeps repeating that the situation in Burma is very complex; I think we know that. What is really disturbing for those of us who went to listen to Aung San Suu Kyi and were so moved by her speech is that it seems that not only is she not doing anything, but she is not actually saying anything. In view of our relationship with the country and with her, does the Minister not think that someone should pick up the phone and speak to her? Has he done so? Has the Foreign Secretary spoken to her? Has anyone telephoned her and had a conversation in which they have repeated what some of us are saying in the Chamber today?

Mark Field: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Aung San Suu Kyi in recent weeks, when the situation was obviously already beginning to deteriorate. I know that he has regular conversations with her, and I am sure he will be on the phone to her again in that regard.
I am sorry if my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—the Thames lies between our constituencies—feels that I am repeating myself. It has to be said that there are only so many ways in which I can answer the same questions from Opposition Members. I do understand the heartfelt concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House. As I say, I think the message will go out loud and clear to Rangoon and, indeed, to other parts of Burma.

Faisal Rashid: I heard the Minister’s statement, and to be honest, I am quite disappointed. It is a really big issue, and he has mentioned a number of times that the Government are working on the ground. What exactly does he mean by “working on the ground”? What exactly has he been doing and what exactly has he done during the past few weeks? Will he please explain?

Mark Field: To be fair, the nature of diplomacy is to try to keep open lines of communication as far as possible. We obviously have connections at both ministerial level and also, and probably more importantly, through our embassy on the ground in Burma.
Above all, as I have said, there is the humanitarian aid that we are putting in place—a huge amount of work is going on—for the displaced communities that have been leaving. It is a massive humanitarian problem. At one level, it is clearly a problem for the international community, but vast amounts of DFID money—not least because of our expertise on the ground in that part of Bangladesh—are being put to good use to meet this humanitarian crisis.
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman feels that not enough is being done. The reality, however, is that if 25,000 or 30,000 more people are pouring across the border daily, that is amazingly difficult to deal with. I do believe—I am confident and satisfied—that Britain is doing all we can in the current circumstances, and as the situation unfolds in the weeks ahead, I hope that we can redouble our work. It is unrealistic to think anything else.

Graham Jones: Over the past six years, the British public have witnessed the murderous persecution of the Rohingya in Rakhine province. At the same time, they have turned on their television screens and heard some of the Burmese Buddhists using language that suggests that the Rohingya are almost subhuman. We have seen that persecution going on. Given that we have given some £80 million a year in DFID aid over this period, the British public will want to know why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no influence over the situation at all.

Mark Field: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that we have no influence. The reality is that even in the past six years, when I accept some terrible things have gone on for the Rohingya population in Burma, there has been a move towards some sense of democracy. There was an election of some sort and Aung San Suu Kyi came into office, albeit with the constitutional constraints she is under and the difficulties brought by the civil war that is going on.
Nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that we have done nothing. There has been a huge amount of energy, particularly from the UK Government. Sometimes that has happened quietly behind the scenes. We shall continue to do that on behalf of the many tens of thousands who find themselves displaced.

Mark Hendrick: The Minister started his statement by talking about a Rohingya attack on the Burmese military. That flies in the face of what is an emerging genocide. When will the Government take a much stronger line with the Burmese Government, which in spite of the election of Aung San Suu Kyi are allowing the military to continue as it did before?

Mark Field: As I said to the hon. Gentleman earlier, the constitution unfortunately constrains that to a certain extent. The military have essentially been in control for most of the time since the successful coup of 1962. The moves towards democracy have, by British standards, been relatively small. The constraint we are under is that the hand of the military still plays a very important role from day to day.
I started my statement with that issue simply to say that the escalation we have seen in the past 10 days came about as the result of a terror attack and the reaction of the security services to it. That is the moment at which things reached the crisis point that we have seen over the past 10 days. However, I accept what has been said by many Members of the House: this is not something that has come out of the blue sky; the persecution of the Rohingya population has been a profound issue for decades.

Mohammad Yasin: The Rohingya were the loyal allies of Britain in world war two and now they face their darkest hour. Will the Minister give  us a clear answer? Will the Government make representations to the UN Security Council, calling for its immediate intervention to protect the Rohingya?

Mark Field: As I pointed out, we are in touch with the UN Security Council. We led the discussions that took place last week in this regard. Clearly, as the situation unfolds, we will be happy to make further representations.

Chi Onwurah: The Newcastle in solidarity with the people of Rohingya group meets on Monday. Does the Minister recognise that many people there—and there will be many people there—will take his word as evidence that he sees the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people as collateral damage in the establishment of democracy in Myanmar and, therefore, that the Rohingya people have no friend in this Government?

Mark Field: I really think that that is a very partisan view of the situation. I have tried to explain the constraints that the Government in Burma find themselves under. That is not to say that the Rohingya are collateral damage. We want to see democracy and, as has been pointed out by many Members, the persecution of the Rohingya minority is not something that has come out the blue in the last year or two; it has been going on for some considerable time. I refute the analysis that the hon. Lady has put into play. We are doing our level best to ensure that this issue is dealt with and she should feel proud, as a UK parliamentarian, that it is the UK Government and our permanent representative in the UK who are taking a lead in raising the profile of this issue in international quarters.

Imran Hussain: Over the weekend, I met members of the Rohingya community in my constituency. They told me horrific stories of some of the most grave crimes against humanity. They did not even know whether their friends and family were dead or alive. They told me horrific stories of women and children being burned and tortured. They also told me that during her time in custody, they had led some of the biggest campaigns in this country for the immediate release of Ms Suu Kyi. Now, in their hour of need, they hear a deafening silence. Why will the Minister not condemn this grave crime against humanity; why will he not condemn the persecution and ethnic cleansing; and why will he not condemn the deafening silence of Ms Suu Kyi?

Mark Field: I will not condemn an elected politician who, in my view, is doing her level best in the most incredibly difficult circumstances. I have pointed out that we condemn violence, and we have done our level best to ensure that tensions are defused as far as possible. That is the position that we will put across to all sides in Burma. We want to see the tension reduced, not raised to a higher level as the hon. Gentleman perhaps suggests, in his passionate plea, would be the right way forward. I do not think that it would be.

Naseem Shah: The Minister may struggle with identifying the situation as genocide, but systematic rape, massacres and the burning of buildings  of a minority community amount to ethnic cleansing to try to force it out of the country, if not out of existence. That is genocide. When can we expect an appropriate response to that effect from the Minister or the Government?

Mark Field: As I have said, that is a legal issue that has to go through the United Nations. It is not for the Government to make such a condemnation or to grandstand, either in the Chamber or elsewhere. The issue will need to be dealt with through the United Nations if it is to go to an International Criminal Court action, and at the moment we judge that it would be unlikely to get through the UN because at least one of the permanent five members of the Security Council would look to impose a veto. We will do our best to make the statements that we need to make in the international community, but this is ultimately a legal rather than a political matter. It would be easy for me to say words from the Dispatch Box to satisfy the hon. Lady now, but it makes much more sense to do things in a systematic manner.

Lisa Cameron: The Department for International Development can and will do excellent work, but there are reports that authorities are restricting access to international aid. What will be done to ensure that the most vulnerable get the aid that they so desperately need? What political steps will be taken, and will the Government condemn those who will not allow access to aid in this humanitarian crisis?

Mark Field: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Particularly on the Burmese side of the border, it is desperately difficult to get our DFID representatives the access that we would like them to have. By contrast, once people have crossed that border and are in refugee camps just inside the Bangladeshi border—I accept that that is by no means an ideal situation—we are able to do terrific work on the ground, and will continue to do so, to try to ensure that a looming humanitarian crisis is kept at bay.

Louise Haigh: One issue inhibiting the UN’s work is the almost complete absence of in-country staff of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Will the Minister urgently raise that with his counterparts to ensure that the commissioner’s staff are granted regular visas?

Mark Field: We will raise that. The hon. Lady will know that Mark Lowcock has just taken up his role, and we will want to discuss that issue with him at the first opportunity.

Julie Cooper: The message that seems to be coming over loud and clear today, as it has in the Foreign Secretary’s comments in recent days, is that the British Government are most concerned about defending the de facto leader and the worthy pursuit of democracy, at the expense of the suffering of the Rohingya Muslims. We have heard talk of getting the UN to take the situation seriously, but when are we going to escalate that? Given that children are being beheaded, villages burned and people raped in huge numbers, how serious does it have to get before we escalate our action?

Mark Field: I understand the upset that the hon. Lady feels. Anyone watching the desperate scenes unfold out in Burma and Bangladesh can only be moved by them. The truth is that if Aung San Suu Kyi were removed from office and Burma’s road towards democracy were closed off, it would be a calamity not just for the Rohingya but for every Burmese citizen, so we should not support that. We must work towards getting Burma on the road to democracy as much as possible rather than trading one off against the other.
I think the hon. Lady makes an unfair interpretation of the British Government’s position. We want to do our level best with what we have in place, but we recognise that things would be even worse if there were not some semblance of democracy in the Burmese Government.

Ben Lake: Over the past five years, the UK Government have allocated over half a million pounds towards the provision of educational training to the Burmese security forces, which, among other things, aims to promote awareness of international humanitarian law, ethics and leadership. What assessment has the Minister made of the efficacy of such training, and, if it has been found wanting, will the Government divert such military aid towards humanitarian efforts?

Mark Field: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard my words earlier on this issue. We are providing the money for educational courses, not military training. Their content complies with the UK’s commitments under the EU arms embargo. The UK is, and will remain, a very strong supporter of continuing the EU arms embargo. We will continue to comply with it as it applies to Burma.

EU EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

David Davis: I will now update the House on the two rounds of negotiations with the European Union which took place in July and August. While at times the negotiations have been tough, it is clear that we have made concrete progress on many important issues. [Laughter.] I rather wondered whether Opposition Members would fall for that. I wonder how they are going to explain to their constituents that they do not care about the pensions and healthcare of 4 million people. I would like to thank all the officials who are working hard, both at home and in Brussels, to make this happen.
Colleagues will have received my letter following the July negotiation round, dated 9 August, which set out the dynamics of that round in some detail. These rounds are not at this stage about establishing jointly agreed legal text; they are about reaching a detailed understanding of each other’s position, understanding where there might be room for compromise and beginning to drill down into technical detail on a number of issues. During both rounds, discussions took place on all four areas, including specific issues relating to: the rights of citizens on both sides; Northern Ireland; the question of a financial settlement; and a number of technical separation issues. I will speak briefly about each in turn.
Making progress on citizens’ rights has been an area of focus for both negotiation rounds and we took significant steps forward in both July and August. We have published the joint technical paper, which sets out our respective positions in more detail, and this has been updated following the August round. It underlines both a significant alignment between our positions and provides clarity on areas where we have not, as yet, reached agreement. In July, we reached a high degree of convergence on: the scope of our proposals on residents and social security; the eligibility criteria for those who will benefit from residents rights under the scope of the withdrawal agreement; and a shared commitment to make the citizens’ application process as streamlined and efficient as possible. In August, we agreed: to protect the rights of frontier workers; to cover future social security contributions for those citizens covered by the withdrawal agreement; to maintain the rights of British citizens in the EU27 to set up and manage a business within their member state of residence, and vice versa; and that we should protect existing healthcare rights and arrangements for EU27 citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU. These are the European health insurance or “EHIC” arrangements.
These areas of agreement are good news. They may sound technical, but they matter enormously to individuals —something Opposition Members might remember when thinking about their own constituents. The agreement on healthcare rights, for example, will mean British pensioners living in the EU will continue to have their healthcare arrangements protected both where they live and when they travel to another member state, where they will still be able to use an EHIC card. On mutual recognition of qualifications, we have made progress in protecting the recognition of qualifications for British citizens resident in the EU27, and EU27 citizens resident  in the UK. In fact, each one of those areas of agreement is reciprocal, and they will work for Brits in the EU and EU 27 citizens in the UK. They help to provide certainty and clarity for EU 27 citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU 27. They will make a tangible difference to those people’s lives. I hope everyone recognises the importance of that.
The outcomes of the discussions demonstrate that we have delivered on our commitment to put citizens first, and to give them as much certainty as possible as early as possible in the process. Of course there are still areas of difference, on which we continue to work. For example, we will need to have further discussions on the specified cut-off date, on future family reunion, and on the broader issue of compliance on enforcement. Progress in those areas will require flexibility and pragmatism from both sides.
During the summer negotiating rounds, a number of issues emerged in the EU offer that will need further consideration. For example, the European Union does not plan to maintain the existing voting rights for UK nationals living in the EU. We have made it clear that we will protect the rights of EU nationals living in the UK to stand and vote in municipal elections. Similarly, the EU proposals would not allow UK citizens currently resident in the EU to retain their rights if they moved within the EU.
Even in areas in which there has been progress, more is needed. While the EU has agreed to recognise the qualifications of UK citizens resident in the EU, and vice versa, we believe that that should go much further. The recognition must extend to students who are currently studying for a qualification, it must apply to onward movement by UK citizens in the EU, and it should extend more broadly to protect the livelihoods of thousands of people which depend on qualifications that will be gained before we exit the EU. In those areas, the EU’s proposals fall short of ensuring that UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK can continue to lead their lives broadly as they do now.
On separation issues—a very technical area—we established a number of sub-groups. They made progress in a number of specific areas, and drew on papers that the UK published ahead of both rounds. I am pleased to say that we are close to agreement on our approach to post-exit privileges and immunities—on which we have published a position paper—which it will benefit both the UK and the EU to maintain after we leave. We have agreed on our mutual approach to confidentiality requirements on shared information post-exit. With respect to nuclear materials, we held discussions on the need to resolve issues relating to the ownership of special fissile material, and the responsibility for radioactive waste and spent fuel held both here and there. We reiterated—this is important—a strong mutual interest in ensuring that the UK and the European Atomic Energy Community, or Euratom, continue to work closely together in the future as part of a comprehensive new partnership.
With respect to legal cases pending before the European Court of Justice, the parties discussed and made progress on the cut-off points for cases being defined as “pending”. There was also progress in discussions concerning the UK’s role before the Court while those pending cases  are being heard. With respect to judicial co-operation in civil and commercial matters, and ongoing judicial co-operation in criminal matters, we made good progress on the principles of approach and the joint aim of providing legal certainty and avoiding unnecessary disruption to courts, businesses and families. With respect to goods on the market, both parties reiterated the importance of providing legal certainty for businesses and consumers across the EU and the UK at the point of departure. In that area, in particular, we emphasised that the broader principles outlined in the UK’s position paper seek to minimise the type of uncertainty and disruption for business that we are all working to avoid.
We remain committed to making as much progress as possible on the issues that are solely related to our withdrawal, but our discussions this week have demonstrated and exposed yet again that the UK’s approach is substantially more flexible and pragmatic than that of the EU, as it avoids unnecessary disruption for British businesses and consumers. I have urged the EU to be more imaginative and flexible in its approach to withdrawal on that point.
I am pleased to report that there has been significant, concrete progress in the vital area of Northern Ireland and Ireland. The negotiation co-ordinators explored a number of issues, including both the Belfast or Good Friday agreement and the common travel area. In August, the group also held detailed discussions on the basis of the UK position paper. As both Michel Barnier and I said at last week's press conference, there is a high degree of convergence on those key issues, and we agreed to work up shared principles on the common travel area. That is a major change.
We also agreed to carry out further technical work on cross-border co-operation under the Belfast agreement. Of course, as I said all along, the key issues in relation to cross-border economic co-operation and energy will need to form an integral part of discussions on the UK’s future relationship with the EU.
Finally, on the financial settlement, we have been clear that the UK and the EU will have financial obligations to each other that will survive our exit from the European Union. In July, the Commission set out the European Union position. We have a duty to our taxpayers to interrogate that position rigorously, and that is what we did, line by line—it might have been a little bit of a shock to the Commission, but that is what we did line by line. At the August round, we set out our analysis of the EU’s position. We also had in-depth discussions on the European Investment Bank and other off-budget issues.
It is clear that the two sides have very different legal stances. But, as we said in the article 50 letter, the settlement should be in accordance with law and in the spirit of the UK’s continuing partnership with the EU. Michel Barnier and I agreed that we do not anticipate making incremental progress on the final shape of a financial deal in every round. Generally, we should not underestimate the usefulness of the process so far, but it is also clear that there are significant differences to be bridged in this sector.
Initial discussions were also held on governance and dispute resolution. These provided an opportunity to build a better, shared understanding of the need for a reliable means of enforcing the withdrawal agreement and resolving any disputes that might arise under it.
Alongside the negotiations, we have also published a number of papers which set out our thinking regarding our future special partnership with the EU. These future partnership papers are different from our papers that set out the position for the negotiations under our withdrawal agreement. Our future partnership papers are part of a concerted effort to pragmatically drive the progress we all want to see. All along, we have argued that talks around our withdrawal cannot be treated in isolation from the future partnership that we want. We can only resolve some of these issues with an eye on how the new partnership will work in the future. For example, on Northern Ireland it would be helpful to our shared objectives on avoiding a hard border to be able to begin discussions on how future customs arrangements will work. Furthermore, if we agree the comprehensive free trade agreement we are seeking as part of our future partnership, solutions in Northern Ireland are, of course, easier to deliver.
A second example is on financial matters. As I have said, the days of making vast yearly contributions to the EU budget will end when we leave. But there may be programmes that the UK wants to consider participating in as part of the new partnership that we seek. Naturally, we need to work out which of those we want to pursue; we need to discuss them as part of our talks on withdrawal from the EU and our future as its long-standing friend and closest neighbour.
A third example is on wider separation issues. While we are happy to negotiate and make progress on the separation issues, it is our long-term aim that ultimately many of these arrangements will not be necessary. With the clock ticking—to quote Mr Barnier—it would not be in either of our interests to run aspects of the negotiations twice. Last week, we turned our consideration to the next round of talks, and my message to the Commission was: let us continue to work together constructively, but put people above process.
To that end, my team will publish further papers in the coming weeks, continuing to set out our ambition for these negotiations, and the new deep and special partnership the UK wants to build with the EU. Ultimately, businesses and citizens on both sides want us to move swiftly on to discussing our future partnership, and we want that to happen after the European Council in October if possible.
As colleagues know, at the start of these negotiations both sides agreed that the aim was to make progress on four key areas: citizens’ rights, the financial settlement, Northern Ireland and Ireland, and broader separation issues. We have been doing just that, and I have always said—[Interruption.] Nobody has ever pretended that this will be easy; I have always said that this negotiation will be tough, complex and, at times, confrontational. So it has proved, but we must not lose sight of our overarching aim: to build a deep and special new partnership with our closest neighbours and allies, while also building a truly global Britain that can forge new relationships with the fastest growing economies around the world.

Keir Starmer: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me notice of his statement. I also thank him for what I hope will be his agreement to update the House in this fashion after every round of the talks. I think that he has agreed to do that, and I am grateful.
We accept that the negotiations are complex and difficult, and I understand the Secretary of State’s frustration at points with the process and sympathise with the view that some phase 1 issues cannot fully be resolved until we get to phase 2. Northern Ireland is a classic example of that. Although he will not say it, I am sure he is equally frustrated by the deeply unhelpful “go whistle” and “blackmail” comments from some of his own colleagues. I am sure that colleagues and officials in his Department are working hard in these difficult negotiations and I pay tribute to what they are doing behind the scenes. However, the current state of affairs and the slow progress are a real cause for concern. The parties appear to be getting further apart, rather than closer together. Round 3 of the five in phase 1 is gone, and we would now expect agreement to be emerging on the key issues. The last round is in October, and that should involve formal agreement. There is now huge pressure on the negotiating round in September. If phase 2 is pushed back, there will be very serious consequences for Britain, and the concept of no deal, which I hoped had died a death since the election, could yet rise from the ashes—[Interruption.] Great? The second cause for concern is that it is becoming increasingly clear that the Prime Minister’s flawed red lines on issues such as the role of the European Court of Justice or any similar body are at the heart of the problem, as is the matter of progress on EU citizens here and abroad. The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Government need to be much more flexible on that issue. I fear that these examples will crop up not only in phase 1, and that these flawed red lines will bedevil the rest of the negotiations. It is a fantasy to think that we can have a deep and comprehensive trade deal without shared institutions, and the sooner we face up to that, the better.
That brings me to my third concern. We are obviously reaching the stage of the negotiations where fantasy meets brutal reality. The truth is that too many promises have been made about Brexit that cannot be kept. The Secretary of State has just said that no one pretended this would be easy, but the Government were pretending it would be easy. The International Trade Secretary promised that a deal with the EU would be
“one of the easiest in human history”
to negotiate. A year ago, in the heady early days of his job, the Secretary of State himself wrote that
“within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete…we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU.”
He went on to say that
“the new trade agreements will come into force at the point of exit from the EU, but they will be fully negotiated and therefore understood in detail well before then.”
Even this summer, the Government published position papers riddled with further fantasies. The “track and trace” customs idea was put forward on 15 August as an apparently serious proposition, only to be effectively removed on 1 September by the Secretary of State himself, with the admission that it was merely “blue sky thinking”.
The time for floating fantastical ideas is over. There must be no more promises that cannot be met. This is the brutal reality. We need to know how the Secretary of State intends to ensure that real progress is made in the September round. Is he intending to intensify the talks? Does he accept that it is now time to drop some of the  Prime Minister’s deeply flawed red lines, in order to create the flexibility that he says is necessary? When we will see position papers that actually set out the Government’s considered position on the key issues?

David Davis: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments at the beginning and for recognising that not only on Northern Ireland in particular, but on many other issues, the future relationship is indistinguishable from the ongoing negotiations. That is one of the problems in this negotiating exercise and it arises directly because the Commission is seeking to use keeping the first part of the negotiations going as a pressure point against Britain in the future, and I will return to that in a moment because I have a point to make.
On citizens’ rights, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman holds up as being—I have forgotten what his phrase was, but it involved something about red lines. Anyway, citizens’ rights is not the issue that is vexing the Commission. In fact, internal progress has been remarkably effective. He is quite right about the European Court of Justice, but everything else has been going pretty well. I expect that we will conclude most of those issues—in outline, not in text—quite soon. However, what does the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually want the Government to do? The Commission is saying, “Unless we give approval that sufficient progress has been made, we will not go on to the main substance of negotiation: the ongoing rights.” What is it seeking to get from that? It is seeking to obtain money. That is what this is about. Do members of the Labour party want to pay €100 billion in order to get progress in the next month? Is that what they are about? That is what they were saying. I hope that the answer is no, but what we heard from the shadow Brexit Secretary was a beautiful piece of lawyerly argument that ignored the simple fact that this is a pressure tactic to make us pay. We are going to do this the proper way. We are going to represent the interests of the British taxpayer and that means rigorously interrogating every line of the argument on funding line by line. That is the way that we are going to go.
As for the other elements that the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about, I do not resile at all from the intention to negotiate a first-rate free trade agreement with the European Union in the course of the next two years. That is why we published all the position papers. He tried to rubbish one or two of them, but let me cite one to him: the customs paper. By the way, saying that something is blue-sky thinking is not to rubbish it; it is to say that it is imaginative and forward-thinking. The position papers were designed to make points to our European partners so that they could see what the future might look like under our vision. Let me give him the response of Xavier Bertrand, the president of Hauts-de-France, which includes Calais and Dunkirk—our nearest ports in France. He said:
“We welcome with great interest the initiatives announced by the British government… as they are likely to preserve trade between the UK and France”.
France is supposedly the country most resistant to our arguments and to free trade, but the man responsible for Calais and Dunkirk said that that is the way that we should go and that is the way that we will go.

Kenneth Clarke: The Secretary of State will recall that during the referendum campaign the prominent leaders of the leave campaign who dominated the media refuted any suggestion that our future trading relationships with Europe would be affected in any way. The present Foreign Secretary put great weight on the fact that the Germans need to sell us their Mercedes and that the Italians need to sell us their prosecco. Now that we are modifying our trade agreement, does the Secretary of State accept that in the modern world any trade agreement with any country, the EU, the US, Japan or anybody else involves some pooling of sovereignty, some mutual recognition or harmonisation of regulations, some defining and easing of customs barriers and some easing of tariffs, and that they always take years to negotiate or to modify?
Will he therefore demonstrate the imagination and flexibility that he has been demonstrating so far and actually accept that we should remain members of the existing single market and the customs union during the interim transitional period, which will be necessary before we have our new relationship? That will greatly ease his progress in opening up the hundreds of other issues that he will have to start negotiating in a moment and will certainly ease the great uncertainty in British business that is threatening to cause so much damage to our economy at the moment.

David Davis: As ever, my right hon. and learned Friend—

Emily Thornberry: We’re over here.

David Davis: The microphone is there, and the speaker is there.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has touched on some important points. No. 1, on the ability to do this deal, we start from a position of exact identity on product regulations and other social regulation—such regulation is what worries the European Union—so we are in the same place. The issue is not one of bringing together massively different economies but of maintaining a reasonable relationship between the regulatory structures of our country and of that organisation.
My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right in one respect, which is that whenever a trade agreement is forged, it will have within it agreements on standards—the Canadian one did, for example—and not just on product standards but on, say, labour law standards. The Canadian deal has labour law commitments to stay above International Labour Organisation standards. In that respect, we are in the same place.
In terms of the implementation or transitionary period—call it what you will—there is now widespread agreement across Europe that it will be beneficial to have an implementation period. How long it will be and how it will work will be decided straightforwardly on practicalities. Three things will drive an implementation period: No. 1 is this Government’s ability to put in place regulations, new customs arrangements, and so on; No. 2 is the ability of companies, corporations and sometimes people to accommodate it, which is principally the issue with financial services, for example; and No. 3 is the ability of other countries to accommodate it. That is why the quote from Xavier Bertrand is important, because it shows  a clear intent on the part of major French politicians to bring about the sort of frictionless trade that we want. I find myself largely agreeing with my right hon. and learned Friend, but this is why it is entirely possible to deliver a first-class Brexit for Britain.

Peter Grant: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, and for giving us an advance copy.
The Secretary of State is looking for imagination and flexibility from the European Union, but I do not think there is anyone in the European Union with the fevered imagination needed to think that the NHS would be £357 million a week better off if we left the European Union. Will he clarify exactly what flexibility the UK Government have shown? They were inflexible to the point of obstinacy in trying to avoid any parliamentary oversight on the article 50 process. They set their own inflexible deadline for triggering article 50, and they set their own inflexible red lines before the negotiations had even started, including an inflexible determination to leave the single market without any idea at all as to where we would go instead.
All this has been done over the heads of the devolved national Governments and, to a large extent, over the heads of Members of this Parliament. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has updated the House today, but he has not updated the Joint Ministerial Committee since six weeks before article 50 was triggered, despite a joint request from both the Welsh and Scottish Governments for such a meeting.
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government will now be flexible in having proper, meaningful and constructive dialogue with the devolved nations? Will he now accept that this Government’s continued obsession with immigration is forcing him into a dangerously inflexible position on the single market, threatening 80,000 jobs in Scotland and hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the UK? Or will the Government continue on their present course, charging blindfold towards a cliff edge and relying on the Daily Mail to make us believe that it was all the foreigners’ fault when it all goes wrong?

David Davis: First, on flexibility, I have just mentioned areas that matter to individuals, such as guaranteeing their pensions, guaranteeing their healthcare and so on, and those areas did involve some flexibility on the part of the British negotiating team, who did a very good job.
On notification, I chaired a number of JMC meetings—I do not do it anymore, as the JMC is now chaired by the First Secretary of State—to keep the devolved Administrations up to speed. Indeed, yesterday I briefed in detail Mike Russell of the Scottish Government and Mark Drakeford of the Welsh Administration. Obviously, at the moment I have a bit of difficulty briefing the Northern Ireland Executive, because they do not exist yet. But the hon. Gentleman can take it as read that the concerns of the devolved Administrations have been taken on board very squarely and will continue to be so in the course of the ongoing negotiation.

Iain Duncan Smith: I urge my right hon. Friend not to accept the advice of the Opposition party, which only six weeks  ago was in favour of leaving the customs union and the single market, only to reverse that position today; he should stay steady on the course of the Government. On transition and implementation deals, over which the Opposition have got very excited, may I remind him of one simple fact: you cannot have any discussion about transition or implementation until you know what you are transitioning to? Thus the agreement over what we get with the European Union comes before any discussion about transition deals.

David Davis: I take my right hon. Friend’s point about the Labour party. I was being quite kindly to my opposite number, the shadow Brexit Secretary—after all, I only have to negotiate with Brussels, whereas he has to negotiate with his entire Front Bench! My right hon. Friend is right to say that we have to know where the endgame will be—where the end position will be—in order to get an accurate description of the implementation and transition period. I will differ from him on one point: that does not mean that we should not make it clear up front that we intend to have some sort of implementation period, where it is necessary—only where it is necessary.

Hilary Benn: Leaving without a deal would be disastrous, and the Government must now realise that it will not be possible to negotiate the bespoke deal that they have spoken about at great length by the time set out under the article 50 process, because there will not be sufficient time, given the rate of progress. In order for the Secretary of State to talk about an implementation period, he has to have something to implement. Why does he not recognise, therefore, that the only way now to give business the stability and certainty it requires is to say that we will remain within the current trade and market access arrangements for a transitional period in order to allow a final deal to be negotiated and agreed?

David Davis: Let us start with the right hon. Gentleman’s original presumption that we cannot achieve a negotiated deal in the period. As he should know, given his role as past and current Chairman of the Brexit Committee, the previous Trade Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, who is no friend of Brexit and does not approve of what we are doing, has said in terms that it is not technically difficult to achieve a trade outcome—all it requires is political will. What it requires is the political will on the European side to do it. What will give that political will is the fact that it sell roughly €300 billion of product to us every year and will want to continue doing so.

Bill Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that not only have the official Opposition been totally contradictory on the single market, customs union and the European Court, but they are now even defying their own manifesto and their vote on the article 50 Act, let alone the democratic outcome of the referendum itself? In other words, they have now moved from being remainers to reversers.

David Davis: On the day the shadow Brexit Secretary was on “The Andrew Marr Show” saying, if I remember his words correctly, that he was glad to have a unified party behind his current policy—policy No. 10, by the way—on that very same programme, the right hon.  Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) was saying exactly that: that the right hon. Gentleman was betraying Labour’s own voters. That is what the Labour party has to come to terms with. Its voters, more than anybody else, want us to leave. They voted for it and they want us to leave, and Labour had better deliver on it.

Yvette Cooper: Last year, UK agencies initiated 3,000 Europol investigations, yet with just 18 months until we are due to lose our Europol membership, our European arrest warrant and our security co-operation underpinnings we still have no idea what the Government want—is it to replace this, to extend it or to include it in a transition? There have been no announcements and there was not even any mention of it in the Secretary of State’s statement today. When are we going to get some substance on this serious issue about public safety and national security? When is he going to realise that this waffle is letting the country down?

David Davis: In my statement I discussed civil judicial co-operation and criminal judicial co-operation, which relate to the right hon. Lady’s question—or criminal judicial co-operation does, at least. The European Union will only negotiate on the ongoing relationship once it has decided there has been sufficient progress. At that point—I have said this in terms, and it was in the article 50 letter, the Lancaster House speech and the White Paper—we intend to negotiate a parallel arrangement, similar to what we have now, based on the structures we currently have, and we intend to maintain exactly what she says: the high level of co-operation on intelligence, counter-terrorism and anti-criminal work that we have had in the past.

John Redwood: I congratulate the Secretary of State on explaining that we have no legal liability to pay money above our contributions up to the date of departure. We want to get on and spend that on our priorities. Does he agree that the EU has a simple choice to make, which I hope it will make sooner but which it will probably make later: it can either trade with us with no new tariffs or barriers, because we have made a very generous offer, or it can trade with us under World Trade Organisation rules, which we know works fine for us because that is what we do with the rest of the world?

David Davis: My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and one of the things I have picked up going around the European Union countries is that most of those nations also understand that fact very plainly. That is particularly true of those on the North sea littoral—Holland, Belgium and France I have mentioned, and Denmark—which all know that the impact of no deal on their economies would be dramatic, and more dramatic than for us.

Tom Brake: Petulant references to the EU blackmailing the UK do not help our negotiating stance; in fact, they increase the risk of our crashing out of the EU. In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State still agree with himself on the need for a decision referendum, which would allow people to vote on the terms of the deal or to stay in the EU?

David Davis: The right hon. Gentleman has had great difficulty understanding the distinction between mandate referendums and decision referendums down the years. I suggest he goes back and reads the speech properly, because he is just wrong and he does not understand it—

Tom Brake: I have read it.

David Davis: If he has read it, I fear he has some other problem.

Anna Soubry: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I do not know whether he heard me, but I was cheering the contribution by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), because I agree that we should have a transition period that includes our remaining a member of the single market and the customs union. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Ah, yet again we hear cheers in support of that notion from right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, but does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that that is not the policy of the Labour party? In a radio interview yesterday, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) explained that Labour’s policy would be to negotiate a customs union with the EU by way of a transitional period. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is exactly the Government’s policy?

David Davis: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and she is right that the Labour party is incredibly confused about what its policy is. The approach we are taking is simple: we want a customs agreement that goes with a free trade agreement. Those two things together are designed to deliver frictionless free trade. We want not only to protect the jobs and the economy, about which she is quite right to be concerned, but to be able to trade with the rest of the world, which is where the maximum growth is.

Chris Bryant: I hope there is a deal, and that it is good both for Europe and for us. However, to implement such a deal, with clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill the Government are seeking to allow Ministers to introduce regulations that
“may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament”—
any provision—
“(including modifying this Act).”
In the whole history of this Parliament, no Government have ever come to Parliament to ask for that. That is not a Henry VIII clause, it is an Alice in Wonderland clause! Surely the Secretary of State, as the parliamentarian who has stood up so many times at the Dispatch Box to call for Parliament to have powers, should amend that provision before it comes to Committee stage.

David Davis: I will deal with that in more detail on Thursday, but I am not the one in fantasy land. This is a Bill that will work and will deliver the best deal for Britain.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Has my right hon. Friend raised the thought with Monsieur Barnier that if a member state that is a net beneficiary were leaving, would he expect to pay it a large dowry? When he realises that the answer to that  question is obvious, does it follow that the European Commission’s demand for money with menaces is ridiculous?

David Davis: I did raise that point in a rather jocular way about three or four months ago and all I got was laughter. The important point is this: the European Union has based its argument on legal necessity: we have to pay because that is what the law says. Our approach to that was not to make some sort of counter bid as it wanted us to do, but to go back and say, “Okay, let’s test that law.” Last week, it was given a two-and-a-half hour briefing on why we think the legal basis is flawed. To some extent, that is why the end of that negotiating round was tetchier than the one before.

Chris Leslie: On the financial settlement, can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will bring forward a separate and distinct vote in Parliament to authorise any billions of pounds of divorce bill from the European Union? I ask him because next Monday he is expecting the House—hon. Members will see this on the Order Paper—to vote for a money resolution, which authorises, in advance, any expenditure, and, worse, for a ways and means resolution, which authorises any tax. I do not think that he would accept that Parliament should be giving such a blank cheque in advance without knowing what the settlement is.

David Davis: I think the hon. Gentleman has got that wrong. The Bill does not cover separation payments. I ask him to bear in mind one other thing that we have said, which is that there will be a vote of this House on the final settlement. My expectation is that the money argument will go on for the full duration of the negotiation. The famous European line that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed will apply here as it will everywhere else, but there will be a vote in which the House can reflect its view on the whole deal, including on money.

Vicky Ford: I thank the Secretary of State not only for this update, but for all his work over the summer. I spent a bit of the summer in Ireland and Northern Ireland with businesses trading across the border, looking at the papers and suggestions on customs and on Ireland and Northern Ireland. May I congratulate him on trying to find creative solutions to make that border crossing, and indeed crossing the channel, easier? There is interest from both sides of the border on working on those. Given the complexity, can he update us on whether we can move to continuous rather than monthly negotiations to progress discussions?

David Davis: First, on customs borders and frictionless trade, there was a lot of attention on my visit to Washington last week, but I went straight from there to Detroit to look at the American-Canadian border. That has always been a very open border. I have traded across it myself, so I know it well. The average clearance time for a vehicle going through that border—there is a choke point—is 53 seconds. When we clear containers from outside the European Union area, we can clear 98% of them in four to five seconds. Technology can accelerate these things enormously well, and that is what we are aiming to do.
With respect to the negotiating round, we stand ready to do anything to accelerate the process. This process was asked for by the Commission. We must bear in mind that it has a very stiff, rigid, structured mandate process: it draws up its lines, negotiates, goes back to report to the other 27, and starts the cycle again. I do not know whether it is possible to get continuous negotiation that way. If it is, we would be happy to go along with it.

Pat McFadden: On the financial settlement, does the Secretary of State believe that the European Union is blackmailing the UK?

David Davis: With the best will in the world, I choose my own words. In a negotiation there are pressure points, but that is to be expected. Anyone who imagines that 28 nations effectively negotiating together will not come to a point of pressure is living in another world—a fantasy world, someone said.

Bernard Jenkin: May I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that it was Michel Barnier who described the idea of a transition period without a clear agreement at the end as a bridge to nowhere, so will he dismiss some of the advice that he has received on transition periods? May I also invite him to dismiss the idea that September will be the great progress point against which the Government should be tested? Should we not wait until after the German elections when the German Chancellor will be much more fully involved in the discussions before we become really impatient for progress?

David Davis: I would not be harsh on Michel Barnier or others. The view of what a transition period is has gone through an enormous metamorphosis in the past six months. When we began talking about this—us and the European 27—the Europeans had in mind using the entire two years to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, then a sort of infinite transition period in which we negotiated our departure. That is clearly something that was massively against our interest in negotiating terms.
What was my hon. Friend’s second question? [Interruption.] Germany—yes. There are other issues that play against the timetable; there is no doubt about that. The German election takes place in three weeks or so, and the formation of the German Government will take at least another couple of months—probably three months. That will have an impact, because Germany—it is no secret—is the most powerful and important nation in Europe, as well as the paymaster, and it will have a big say in the outcome. So yes, there are other things to consider. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we should not pin ourselves to September, October or whatever, because in doing so we would be doing the job of the people negotiating against us, and we are precisely not going to do that.

Keith Vaz: A record number of EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom applied for British citizenship this summer. We have 3 million EU citizens living here. Given that there is still no certainty about their status, is the right hon. Gentleman’s advice to them immediately to apply for leave to remain in this country? If so, what additional resources does he propose to give to the Home Office?

David Davis: My advice is almost the opposite. The simple truth is that if 3 million people applied for leave to remain the Home Office might have the odd glitch along the way. That is part of the point of saying that there will be a two-year grace period after departure in 2019 in which people can make that application. Between now and then a great deal of resource will be put in to ensure that that process is streamlined. The right hon. Gentleman will remember because of his previous eminent role that the original application document was something like 85 pages long. We got it down to 16 and now six. It will be streamlined to a very, very simple process by the time that we get to that two-year grace period.

David Jones: Article 50 provides in terms that the negotiations in which my right hon. Friend is engaged should take into account the framework for the future relationship between the departing member state and the European Union, but, as we have heard, the EU refuses to address that question. When he next sits down with Michel Barnier, would my right hon. Friend draw to his attention the fact that he is in dereliction of his duties under the treaty and that his stubborn refusal to discuss that future relationship is as contrary to the interests of the European Union as it is to those of the United Kingdom?

David Davis: My right hon. and dear Friend, who used to be in my Department not very long ago, knows full well that I have made those points more than once to Michel and other members of the Union negotiating team. This is not within the normal perspective as laid out by article 50, but we have gone along with it simply to get citizens’ rights under way. That is what we have done, but now we are getting to the point at which we will think very hard about what the next stage is.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome the Secretary of State’s paper on Northern Ireland, particularly the assurances to Unionists that the border will not be drawn along the Irish sea, and equally to nationalists that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. I especially welcome the fact that those goals are achievable because of the practical measures suggested in the paper. Is he therefore disappointed by the Irish Government’s negative response to his paper, especially since they have so much to lose from an EU punishment beating of the UK? Has he had any assurances from the Irish Government that they will not act on the spiteful advice of Gerry Adams that they should block any agreement between the EU and the UK?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman knows that I fight very shy of getting entangled in Irish politics, but I am confident that we can get a non-visible border operational between Northern Ireland and Ireland using the most up-to-date technology. That was one reason that I went to Detroit. It was not so we could replicate what is in Detroit and Buffalo, but so we could use some of the same techniques, such as authorised economic operators, pre-notification and electronic tagging of containers. All those things will make it possible for the border to be as light-touch as it is today.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a failure to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, transferring European law  into British law, would plunge this country into chaos when we leave the European Union? Does he find it extraordinary that any party claiming to respect the decision of the British people should contemplate voting against it?

David Davis: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. It is one of the reasons that there is tension within the Labour party now—[Interruption.] There is very visible tension on the television screen, let alone anywhere else. My right hon. Friend is dead right that the point of the repeal Bill—now the withdrawal Bill—is to ensure that the laws we have the day before we leave the European Union are the same laws as the ones we have the day after we leave, except where there has been another piece of primary legislation to replace it, whether on immigration or whatever else. That is simply a practical matter. It should not actually be a matter of politics; it is a simple matter of national interest.

Kate Hoey: As the Secretary of State just said, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is a crucial piece of legislation for us to leave the EU. Would he therefore agree that, although people might have difficulties with parts of it that can be discussed in Committee, anyone who votes against the principle on Second Reading is betraying the will of the British people?

David Davis: The hon. Lady is exactly right. Such people will have to face their own constituents because those constituents voted to leave. This is a practical Bill designed to protect the interests of British business and British citizens. That is what it is there for—nothing else.

Antoinette Sandbach: In the Secretary of State’s closing remarks at the most recent round of negotiation, he said that the UK has shown
“a willingness to discuss creative solutions”
on the governance of citizens’ rights. Will he outline in more detail the governance proposals?

David Davis: This is the area where the European Union’s start position was to have European Court of Justice direct effect in the United Kingdom. We have said that we are a country that obeys the rule of law and its international treaties, that the treaty would be passed through into the law—we would repeat it there—and that we may set up some ombudsman arrangement with a reference to it. Those are the sort of ideas that we have in play.

Stella Creasy: The Secretary of State cautioned us to think about our constituents in response to his statement, so I am thinking about the nearly 30 million British people—I believe that is the figure—who went to Europe this summer, mainly on holiday. Will he confirm for them today that they will be able to book their European holiday when they come to do so next year, or is he thinking about blue skies, but delivering empty ones at this point?

David Davis: One duty we do owe our constituents is not to start scare stories.

Edward Leigh: During the last three or four years, there have been very high levels of migration into the EU, particularly from north Africa and the middle east. If there is to be an implementation period, existing EU citizens will no doubt have freedom of movement into our country during that period. For that reason, will my right hon. Friend ensure, first, that the implementation period is over well before the date of the scheduled next election and, secondly, that if existing EU citizens do have a right of entry during the implementation period, that right refers to people who are already citizens of the EU at the end of March 2019?

David Davis: My hon. Friend is introducing a whole load of hypotheticals. As I said earlier, the transition or implementation period might be an homogenous extension of what we have now, or it might be a piece-by-piece extension. We do not know at the moment; we have not yet even got into that negotiation. But the simple fact is that there are a number of things limiting how long that period can go on for. One of them is, frankly, that the Government have to deliver on departure from the European Union promptly—that is really what the British people expect. But there are also other issues, such as negotiability; if this period ran for too long, some of the Parliaments in Europe might think, “Actually, that’s a new treaty, and therefore we need to have a mixed-agreement procedure.” So there are a variety of things that will limit the extent it will go on for, and I am pretty clear it will be over before the next election.

Caroline Lucas: Now that the Brexit negotiations are going so well that the Secretary of State has taken to calling his counterpart silly, will he publish the impact assessments his Department has overseen in relation to 50 sectors of the economy, or is he afraid that if he were to publish them, that might just make him look a bit silly, particularly if the leak is true from the Department of Health, which foresees a potential shortfall of 40,000 nurses by 2026?

David Davis: Let us start with a correction. I am sure the hon. Lady is not intending to mislead the House, but on television yesterday I corrected Mr Andrew Marr twice when he tried to say I had called Michel Barnier silly. I hope she will understand that that is not true. It does not help the negotiation to throw those bits of fiction into play.
The second thing I would say is that we are being as open as it is possible to be in terms of the information on this negotiation, subject to one thing, which is that we do not undermine the negotiation or give ammunition to the other side that is useful to them in the negotiation. That is the principle we will continue with.

Crispin Blunt: Does the Secretary of State agree that the progress of the negotiations is entirely unsurprising, given the framework within which Michel Barnier is having to operate, as laid down by the European Council? It is only when we get to October, and they take a decision to consider what the Opposition spokesman called phase 1 and phase 2 together that we can begin to make real and serious progress.

David Davis: My hon. Friend is right that the mandate structure is rigid; it does make it difficult for Mr Barnier and his team to be as flexible as they might want to be.  It will be the point at which the Council starts to take a steering role in this that indicates the change in speed. That may well be October, but it may well be dictated by other events—as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said earlier, the German election will have an impact, and other political issues in Europe will have an impact. And the process will go at varying speeds. As I have said from the beginning, this is going to be a turbulent process: there will be times when there are ripples, there will be times when it is smooth and there will be times when it is very stormy. We must be ready for that, because this is going to be a negotiation about big issues between major states, and these things are never serene.

Stephen Kinnock: The Secretary of State will have noted that the United Kingdom registered the lowest rate of economic growth in the entire European Union in the first quarter of this year. Does he think that the chaotic and shambolic way these negotiations are going may have contributed to that level of growth?

David Davis: I am lost for words as to where to start on the logical impossibilities. First, I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s economic numbers. We have a country that has had sharp increases in exports and sharp increases in manufacturing. Vast numbers of good things are happening on the economic front, including the highest employment ever and the lowest unemployment for 42 years. So I simply do not recognise his rather interesting barb.

Julian Lewis: Have not the exchanges this afternoon shown once again that the Opposition’s position is that any agreement at all, no matter how bad for Britain and no matter how extortionate, is better than a clean break in 2019 if a good deal for Britain is not then on offer? Does it remain Government policy that a clean break in 2019 is better than a bad deal, as it may lead to more fruitful negotiations further down the line after we have actually left the European Union?

David Davis: The answer is yes, because the Prime Minister reiterated that just the other day.

Angela Eagle: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if we leave the European Union without a deal the car plant up the road from my constituency in Ellesmere Port, which currently provides 2,000 full-time jobs and a much wider supply chain, will struggle, because if we leave the customs union and the single market, that adds £125 million a year, and its supply chains are very mixed up all over Europe? Having no deal puts those jobs at risk, and it will be a disaster for my constituents in the automotive industry.

David Davis: I referred earlier to my visit to Detroit. One of the things I looked at in Detroit was the Ford factory. It is the original Ford factory—very historic and very big—at Dearborn. It makes the most sold car—the most popular car—in the world. The engine for that car is made in Canada, 10 miles across the border. If that border were such a problem, that factory would not be in Canada; it would be in America. That is a single demonstration—there are thousands of such demonstrations—of how borders can be made frictionless, and that is what we would do.

Bob Neill: I was grateful to the Secretary of State for referring specifically to the progress made on civil and commercial law co-operation. Does he agree, however, that it is imperative that there is early clarity on one specific area—whatever the final outcome of negotiations, there should be early clarity on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments and court orders? Unless that happens, firms will not be willing to enter into contracts for any period that runs over either the date of leaving or any of the likely transition periods that have been posited so far. It would be in both sides’ interests to have that.

David Davis: My hon. Friend is right—that is very high on the priority list.

Meg Hillier: I should declare that my husband is a dual Irish-British national, which gives me a particular interest in the relationship we have after Brexit with our largest trading partner in the EU. The Secretary of State talked about “significant, concrete progress” in this vital area. Yet when I was in Ireland this summer, commentators universally were saying what Fintan O’Toole from The Irish Times said:
“behind all of these delightful reassurances, there is sweet”—
here I paraphrase—“nothing”. Will the Secretary of State please detail what that “significant, concrete progress” is, or are his descriptions of this magic border just a whim?

David Davis: The biggest single issue that came up at the previous negotiating round in July was concern by the European Union that our intention to continue with the common travel area would impinge on the rights of European citizens. We managed to achieve an understanding on its part that that was not the case and that the CTA was therefore well worth preserving. We currently have technical work ongoing on north-south arrangements. We will, of course, have to wait on the outcome elsewhere for things like the Irish energy market and so on, but they are all very much front and centre in our negotiation. The Northern Ireland-Ireland border is very important, but the other very important thing in respect of Ireland is, as the hon. Lady says, its sales and trade with us—a billion a week. But there are also its sales to the continent which tend to come through Britain and require a common transport area too. We are working on all those things.

Simon Clarke: People in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland will be appalled to hear the shadow Front-Bench team opening the prospect of Britain’s continuing in the single market and under the jurisdiction of the ECJ in perpetuity, which is, in my eyes, the very worst outcome that we could get. Does the Secretary of State agree that that would represent a comprehensive betrayal of my voters, and of very many Opposition voters?

David Davis: Yes. The Labour party gleaned a lot of votes in the last election because of a belief that it was willing to support the will of the people in Brexit. It plainly no longer is.

Toby Perkins: Businesses that are thinking about whether to invest here in the UK or overseas in the EU will be horrified to hear the Secretary  of State glibly agreeing with the Prime Minister by saying that leaving on WTO terms would be fine. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to state that if we were to leave on WTO terms, the consequences for the car factory that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) just referred to would be catastrophic; and doing so would be bad for us and for the EU?

David Davis: Let us be clear. The aim of the Government is to get a free trade agreement and associated customs agreement. That is the aim, and that is the expectation. If that does not happen, it is not a catastrophe, but I would much, much prefer a free trade area and a customs agreement. That is what all the efforts of the Government in negotiation are going into.

Anne Main: Does my right hon. Friend agree that given that the majority of the public voted for two parties that held Brexit as part of their manifesto commitment, it would be helpful if the Labour party came to a settled view and made constructive input into the talks that he is having?

David Davis: Yes. One can reasonably expect some Labour Members to have different views, but for the deputy leader of the party to have a different view is really rather dramatic. The Labour party should do as my hon. Friend suggests.

Hywel Williams: When will the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations next meet?

David Davis: That is strictly a matter for the First Secretary. It has partly been delayed by the non-formation of a Northern Ireland Executive, and we will have to find other methods. My intention before the election had been to go, in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive, to a series of bilateral arrangements in the meantime. That is why yesterday I called up the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government to brief them on the detail of the negotiation.

Mark Prisk: As a taxpayer, I welcome the Secretary of State’s practical and cautious approach to the matter of money. May I therefore urge him to continue to press the EU for detailed and, preferably, independently audited numbers before he comes to any financial settlement?

David Davis: We have been pressing the EU, but it has been more of the nature of going through the legal basis for each of the claims. They are all set on various claims about what voting in certain budgets and certain financial proposals binds us to—how much of that is binding. I think, frankly, the outcome will be that we will not agree on the legal basis. As for audited numbers, I used to be the Public Accounts Committee Chairman, and my hon. Friend will remember the number of times we actually got a clear set of accounts from the European Union; I think it was nought.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is entirely possible to love Europe—a subcontinent of wonderful peoples of great culture—but at the same time to oppose totally the European Union on democratic and economic grounds?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman makes, if I may say so, a very civilised point, and he is exactly right.

Peter Bone: Following on from that, it seems to me that it is the European elite’s desire to protect the institution of the European Union and not to worry about the peoples of Europe, and therefore they will delay and delay, hoping that this country will somehow change its view. Will the Secretary of State give this House an absolute undertaking that on 31 March 2019 we will leave the EU, whether a deal has been reached or not, and that there will be no case whatsoever of considering an extension to the negotiations?

David Davis: One point that I think is sometimes confused is the idea that a transitional or implementation period means an extension of the negotiations. We need, essentially, to have arrived at a decision by the end of March 2019, but the simple truth is that the article 50 process stops it there. That is it; that is where it goes to. So even if I did not give the promise, it would happen.

Stephen Doughty: The Secretary of State did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) regarding the money resolution and the Ways and Means motion that he is expecting the House to vote on next Monday. Will he confirm categorically that the motions will give him and other Ministers the power to cut whatever deal they like on the divorce bill without any further reference to this House in a separate, distinguishable vote?

David Davis: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, first, that that is not in the Bill—I have taken advice, and I am correct on that—and secondly, that there is, because the Government have agreed it, a decision to allow a vote in both Houses on the whole deal.

Shailesh Vara: When the European Union says Britain is not taking the talks seriously, it in effect means that it is not happy that Britain is not accepting everything it is putting on the negotiating table. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on not conceding, and on standing up for the British people? May I also remind him that Britain’s position is not as weak as some people would believe? It is not simply one country versus 27 countries; Britain’s population alone is significantly more than those of 15 EU countries combined, and we are also the fifth strongest economy in the world. This has to be a two-way negotiation, and the EU needs to understand that.

David Davis: Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. Sometimes, those involved have to remember that they are negotiators, not arbiters. The simple truth—[Hon. Members: “Turn around.”] There is clearly an outbreak of deafness on the other side of the House. The simple truth is that the interests of the other countries is as much engaged in having a deal as our interests are, and that is what will drive it in the end.

Louise Ellman: Liverpool’s success owes a great deal to the European Union through its investment in business and support for high-level university research. Will the Government show some urgency in addressing these issues, in contrast  to the complacency exhibited in his answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle)?

David Davis: First, any funding that Liverpool gets from the European Union comes, at the end of the day, from the British taxpayer, because we pay in more than we get out. That is the first thing to remember. The second point, on universities, is that we have done a great deal in encouraging universities to continue with their research applications and to continue with bringing in students from abroad, and we have put in place various guarantees to ensure that, so I do not really see what she is driving at.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. May I just gently point out to the House that colleagues who beetled into the Chamber after the statement started should not now be standing and expecting to be called? To put it mildly, that is bad form, and I would have thought that the person guilty of it would know it and desist.

Stephen Hammond: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and for the opportunity he gave Members of this House to spend many pleasurable hours during the recess reading position papers? The position paper on customs largely fails to mention financial services in any way. Given that the sector is our biggest tax raiser and represents 45% of our exports, will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House the Government’s ambitions for customs arrangements in financial services? Have they yet been raised in the negotiations, and does he intend to publish a position paper on those arrangements?

David Davis: The answer to the last part of the question is: not immediately. The financial services sector is clearly an important part of the free trade agreement we want to achieve. Customs primarily apply, of course, to physical goods. We are very clear in our minds that financial services are a massively important part of the negotiation. My hon. Friend should be in absolutely no doubt about that.

Peter Kyle: Has the Secretary of State informed his EU counterpart that he has told this House and promised the people of Britain that he will deliver the “exact same benefits” outside the EU as we currently enjoy inside it, and what was the reaction?

David Davis: Every time this hoary old argument is brought up by Opposition Members I say the same thing to them: I make no apologies for being ambitious on behalf of our country.

Desmond Swayne: Are the negotiations any more convivial than the press conferences that follow them, which serve only as a powerful corrective to any illusion that we ought possibly to have remained part of that institution?

David Davis: All my meetings with everybody are always convivial.

Seema Malhotra: The European Investment Bank is the EU’s not-for-profit, long-term lending institution, and it is symbolic of our commitment to each other’s progress. EIB funding in the UK for infrastructure spending, entrepreneurship and development has been worth €35 billion in the past six years. What specific discussions has the Secretary of State had on the EIB? Is he committed to doing all he can in seeking for the UK to remain a member of the EIB after we leave the EU, or are the Government planning for us to leave the EIB? Can he guarantee that withdrawing from it will not have a negative impact on investment in the UK and on our economy?

David Davis: What the hon. Lady fails to say is that the British economy has actually been more successful than most others in obtaining investment from that source. So far, the negotiations have only been about the departure arrangements—what would happen in the event of a rift—but when we get to the point of talking about the ongoing relationship, I think we will be looking to maintain that ongoing relationship.

Steve Double: Does the Secretary of State agree that the British people are right to expect any divorce settlement to be determined only within the context of our ongoing relationship with the EU, and any expectation that we will agree to a figure before knowing what our future relationship will be is completely unrealistic?

David Davis: Politically, my hon. Friend is quite right: that is the case. It is a point of view that is resisted heavily by the Commission, but he is right.

Helen Goodman: The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that to keep the lights on in this country, we need the electricity interconnectors with the continent to operate—

David Davis: indicated assent.

Helen Goodman: He is nodding, so he does know. The Secretary of State also knows that the legal base for the energy market is separate from that for the single market, so when he says in his statement that
“the key issues in relation to cross-border economic co-operation and energy will need to form an integral part of discussions on the UK’s future relationship”,
is he softening up his colleagues sitting behind him for the reality that we will have to stay in the European energy market?

David Davis: No, but a country does not have to be a member of that to sell and buy from it, just as many other countries do.

Philip Hollobone: Has it not become depressingly clear this afternoon that, with some honourable exceptions, most Opposition MPs have swallowed the EU negotiating line hook, line and sinker? They want us to transition to staying in the single market and the customs union, and if possible to staying in the whole EU, thus preventing us from regaining control of our borders, and they are displaying a catastrophic loss of nerve at the first whiff of grapeshot from the European Commission. May I commend my  right hon. Friend for his cool head and his steady nerve, and may I urge him to hold the line and not to listen to the remoaners who have become reversers who would sell our country short?

David Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for the compliment, but all I will say is that I do not think the grapeshot has started yet.

Andrew Slaughter: Yesterday, with Members from both sides of the House, I was in Calais visiting some of the refugees who have been sleeping rough around the port since the demolition of the Jungle camp. About 200 of them are minors, some of whom have the right to come to the UK under the Dublin III regulations. If we leave the EU—if—the Dublin III regulations will fall away. Will the Secretary of State guarantee to replicate them in immigration rules, and will they then apply just to EU countries or more widely?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not make an instantaneous promise on what will be in the immigration Bill, but this is precisely the sort of thing that that Bill should address. A more general point I made to the European Commission negotiators last week is that a legal requirement is not the only reason for doing things. We are a country with a strong tradition of tolerance and generosity, and if anything, I expect that to grow after we leave, not diminish.

Iain Stewart: If it is deemed desirable to have a transition or implementation period for a fixed length of time after we leave, what reassurances can my right hon. Friend give me that during that period this country will be able to start formally conducting trade negotiations with other countries outside the EU?

David Davis: The basis of the limitation at the moment is the duty of sincere co-operation. That arises from membership of the European Union, and we will not be a member. I would, however, give my hon. Friend one word of caution. In the event that we have an open customs border for the duration—if there is some sort of short-term customs agreement—there will be limitations on what can be done, so the entry into force of such an agreement is unlikely unless it is parallel to the ones between, let us say, Japan and the European Union or South Korea and the European Union. There will be limitations, but he has made the point: we should be able to negotiate during that time.

Adrian Bailey: The Foreign Secretary has publicly proclaimed that the EU can “whistle” for a divorce payment and the Secretary of State for International Trade has accused the EU of blackmailing the UK. How helpful has the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union found those comments in underlining the UK’s commitment to a “flexible and imaginative” approach, which he claims to be the basis of our approach?

David Davis: That just goes to show how lucky it is that I am such an amiable person.

Robert Courts: Michel Barnier has said that his
“state of mind…is to reach an agreement”
with the United Kingdom. In the Secretary of State’s experience, is the good will that is required to reach a negotiated settlement present?

David Davis: Of course it is. The simple fact is that all the negotiators on the other side want to reach a deal, not just out of generosity and altruism to us, but because it is in their own interest to do so. The second thing to say is that, as other people have pointed out, these are simply the negotiators. At the end of the day, they are not the final decision makers. That falls to the Council and it very much has every reason to do a deal.

David Linden: The Secretary of State mentioned that one reason the Joint Ministerial Committee has not met is the political situation in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that he does not want to go into hypotheticals, but if that situation is not resolved in the next few months, when will the JMC next meet?

David Davis: That is a question the hon. Gentleman should put to the First Secretary, who is the decision maker on that. If the situation is not resolved very soon, we will have to find another mechanism. He is exactly right.

Richard Graham: The vice-president of the German Mechanical Engineering Industry Association recently said that German manufacturers were concerned for the future of their businesses and that the economic price of failing to strike a trade deal with the UK
“will be bad for all of us”.
Given that the implication is that businesses on both sides of the channel would benefit from a quick agreement on both the long-term future arrangements and the transition, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the EU started discussing what future EU programmes we might want to participate in and what might be the nature of a free trade agreement, in order to speed up everything for the benefit of all businesses across the continent?

David Davis: Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. The reason that is not happening, as I have intimated before, is that the EU sees it as a tactical advantage at the moment. The simple truth is that it is not just German mechanical engineers, but the head of the Bavarian state, the head of Flanders, the head of Hauts-de-France, as I described earlier—it is many, many people—who see their own interest at risk. That is what will help us out in the end.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the delayed process of the negotiations means that universities and other educational institutions are left on tenterhooks in respect of long-term research programmes and exchange programmes? They do not know whether we will still be part of Horizon 2020 or the Erasmus Plus programme and bids have to be in for the next round at the end of this month. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment  that the universities sector will be one of our top priorities and that it will get full access to Horizon 2020 and Erasmus Plus?

David Davis: I will say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) spends a great deal of time on this issue with research institutes and universities. Within a few days, we will publish another position paper on science and the future that we see in that area. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased with its contents.

Henry Smith: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the figures from the International Monetary Fund that show that the EU’s share of global GDP will fall to just 13% after Brexit and of the significant opportunity that provides for this country in terms of forging international deals not just with, but beyond, Europe?

David Davis: We do not even have to look as far as the IMF. The European Commission itself has said that 90% of the growth in world trade will come from outside Europe. That is where the growth markets and the big markets are. We have the fabulous advantages of the English language, English law and all our historic contacts. The simple truth is that we can make a great future outside the European Union.

Albert Owen: May I press the Secretary of State on the Irish question? In particular, what detailed talks are happening between his Department and the Welsh Government on trade from Welsh ports to Irish ports? My constituents are concerned and they care about what leaving the customs union will mean in terms of barriers, customs and jobs. It seems that the Irish Government and the Welsh Government are concerned—they seem to get it—but that the UK Government do not. Will he assure me that talks are taking place? Will he or one of his Ministers meet me to assure me that that problem is being looked at, as is that of the north-south border in Ireland?

David Davis: If the hon. Gentleman was listening earlier when I answered—

Albert Owen: I was, but I didn’t get an answer.

David Davis: If I can finish the sentence, perhaps he will get an answer. When I answered the question on the north-south border, I said that we were also concerned that Ireland’s access to its major market—ourselves—and to the European market through the Welsh ports would be at risk in a bad outcome, so we are absolutely dealing with that issue.

Richard Drax: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has rather stolen my thunder, because I was going to ask a very similar question about business. What feedback is the Secretary of State getting from businesses across Europe that they want to continue trading with us? It seems to me that the bureaucrats do not and want to punish us, but the business community I speak to wants to do business and does not want tariffs. Is that the feedback he is receiving?

David Davis: Yes, that is it exactly. Most businesses understand the real virtues of free trade and large markets, and they understand that a frictionless arrangement is best not just for us but for them.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Was the Secretary of State as horrified as I was by the comment from a senior Labour party grandee that there will be open “trench warfare” to block Brexit? I do not know whether that grandee was speaking about the conflict between colleagues on the Labour Front Bench, given the disputes over leaving or not leaving the single market, leaving or not leaving the customs union, leaving or not leaving the European Court of Justice and supporting or not supporting freedom of movement, but will the Secretary of State give a strong assurance to my constituents, who voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union, that the United Kingdom is leaving with or without the help of Her Majesty’s Opposition?

David Davis: I think the answer is that we will be leaving without the help of Her Majesty’s Opposition, and there is nothing new in that.

Karin Smyth: The Secretary of State continues to talk about the Canadian border when referring to the Irish border, reducing the situation to a technical issue, which it is not. The situations are not analogous. He said earlier that he would do anything to progress some of the talks. Will the Prime Minister do what her predecessors have done by taking charge of the situation in Ireland and visiting Northern Ireland, perhaps with the Taoiseach, to demonstrate to the EU that this is a highly critical issue that goes beyond the technical issue of the border?

David Davis: The Prime Minister has done that. She spoke to the previous Taoiseach a number of times and, indeed, went to see him. It was her first visit abroad immediately after she became Prime Minister. She has had numerous conversations since. There are some telephone conversations that I am aware of. Last week, I think on Thursday, the Chancellor was in Dublin with the same mission. We take this issue very seriously. There is no doubt about that. I do not think that the Irish Government are in any doubt about the fact that   we take it seriously. Indeed, I met the Irish Foreign Secretary within days of his appointment. We are on this problem and we will get it right.

Martin Whitfield: The Secretary of State said in his statement that he respects the need for safeguards on nuclear materials, but he went on to comment that he looks forward to a “comprehensive new partnership”. Does he envisage Euratom continuing and us being a part of it, or will we have a new Euratom-type agreement?

David Davis: One problem with not being able to get on to the ongoing arrangements is that we do not have a definitive answer to that, but we do know that we are capable of creating a parallel arrangement if need be. That is not technically difficult, but we would prefer to have a closer association than that, and that is what we will play for.

John Bercow: I call Matt Western.

Matt Western: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have just experienced what it is like to be the last Member called and realise that nearly all the questions have already been asked. I will try to make this one slightly fresh.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that exchange rates are seen across the world as the measure of confidence in a country and reinforce the decisions of businesses and others to invest there? Since the negotiations started, our currency has fallen against the euro and the dollar. What does that say about how well the negotiations are going?

David Davis: I will start by helping the hon. Gentleman with his view of the House of Commons: the motto of this place is, “Everything has been said, but it has not yet been said by everyone”, so he is in a good position.
I thought the hon. Gentleman’s view of currencies had gone out with Harold Wilson—“the pound in your pocket” and all that. The simple truth that is a currency lands at the level that works best for the country, and that is what is happening here. We are seeing a significant increase in manufacturing and in exports and an increase in our competitiveness, so I would not worry about that. We do have to worry about inflationary effects, but so far they have been relatively minimal.

GRENFELL TOWER AND BUILDING SAFETY

Sajid Javid: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the latest progress following the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower 12 weeks ago. Over the summer the Prime Minister, the Housing Minister, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service and myself have been meeting the people of north Kensington to make sure that their concerns are being listened to and, more importantly, acted upon. As a result, the Grenfell recovery taskforce has been appointed and started work. The process of removing control of properties from the tenant management organisation has begun; the remit of the public inquiry has been set; a temporary school has been built; and work is under way on the scaffolding that will surround the tower.
I would like to pay particular tribute to the incredible team recovering and identifying the remains of those who died. They are doing an exceptionally difficult job in the most trying of circumstances. So far, they have identified 57 victims, hopefully bringing some measure of comfort to their loved ones. Obviously we would all like to see the process completed as quickly as possible, but I am sure all hon. Members appreciate the need for both accuracy and dignity as well as speed.
My statement will focus on two areas in which the House has previously shown particular interest: the rehousing of residents and our building safety programme. However, I will be happy to answer as many questions as I can on any area that hon. Members wish to cover, and my door is always open to anyone who wants to discuss issues in greater detail.
First, on rehousing, 151 homes were lost to the fire. A number of the households have said that they would like to be rehoused separately, leading to 196 households from Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk needing a new home. Everyone who was ready to engage with the process was offered a temporary home within three weeks of the disaster. Sixty-one households have accepted an offer, and 29 have moved in. Some 153 households, including all but two of those that suffered a bereavement, have had face-to-face meetings with the team responsible for offering a choice of permanent homes, and 164 households have used the online allocation system to look at what permanent accommodation is available, with 127 having expressed an interest in one or more properties. Viewings are continuing this week. So far, 10 households have accepted offers and two have moved in. Twenty-one households that accepted offers of temporary accommodation with housing associations have asked for their tenancies to be made permanent. That is entirely fair, and the council is working to make it happen.
The number of people who have moved into temporary or permanent homes continues to rise, but I know that the overall total is still low. One reason for the low take-up of temporary home offers is that some residents simply do not want to move twice and have said that their preference is to stay where they are until a permanent home becomes available. Meanwhile, residents who have accepted an offer of a permanent home have been given the opportunity to make choices about furniture and so on before they move in. That obviously takes a little time too.
We are talking here about people’s homes and lives, and what matters to us is not ticking boxes but working at the pace that suits the needs and circumstances of individual residents. We do not want to rush anyone. That is why, at the request of residents, the council extended the expressions of interest period for permanent homes. I do not want to see anyone living in emergency accommodation for any longer than is necessary, but nor do I want to see families being forced to move or make snap decisions simply so that I have better numbers to report at the Dispatch Box.
I turn to testing and building safety. Of course, the issues raised by the Grenfell disaster extend well beyond Kensington. Across England there are 173 social housing buildings that are over 18 metres tall and clad with some form of aluminium composite material. In July, the Building Research Establishment began a series of large-scale fire safety tests on ACM cladding systems—both the visible cladding and the internal insulation. The aim was to establish whether each system, when properly fitted, complied with the relevant building regulations guidance, BR 135. Three of the seven cladding systems that were tested were found to meet the criteria set out in BR 135. The other four fell short of what is required. The cladding systems that passed the test are in use on eight social housing towers. Systems that failed are in use on 165.
The owners of affected buildings have been given detailed advice drawn up by our independent expert advisory panel, covering steps to ensure the safety of residents, including, where necessary, the removal of cladding. We have also held weekly update calls with local authorities, housing associations and other building owner groups. We have today published further advice that brings together all the results and the views of the expert panel on the implications for building owners, and we will shortly meet local authorities and housing associations to discuss further steps. That will include the process by which we will ensure that remedial work is carried out.
We have made the BRE test facilities available to all private residential building owners. Although 89 buildings in England have had their cladding tested through those facilities, I continue to urge all private sector owners of similar blocks to submit samples for testing. I have also asked housing authorities to ensure that the same steps are taken for all private sector residential tower blocks in their areas, and to collect the data so that we understand the scale of the issue and can track remedial action.
Inspections carried out since the fire have also highlighted other safety issues related to building design. For example, structural engineers studying Southwark’s Ledbury estate said that strengthening work may be needed on blocks constructed using the concrete panel system that failed with devastating effect at Ronan Point in 1968. They also raised concerns about cracks that appeared cosmetic but could compromise fire safety and compartmentalisation. We have been in contact with Southwark Council and the engineers to discuss those issues and have engaged the Standing Committee on Structural Safety to advise on their implications. Meanwhile, all local authorities that own similar buildings have been advised to review their designs and check whether any strengthening work was carried out properly.
Separately, the British Board of Agrément has told us that, based on its investigations following incidents in Glasgow, some cladding systems may have been designed and installed in such a way that they could fail in strong winds. We are not aware of any injuries caused by this kind of failure. However, we are taking advice from the independent expert panel and we have written to building control bodies to draw their attention to the issues that have been raised. The wider issues of competence and certification will also feed into Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of building safety, the terms of reference of which were announced last week. Finally, I have established an industry response group, which will help the sectors required to improve building safety and to co-ordinate their efforts.
For all the work being done, nothing can match the strength and determination shown by the people of North Kensington. We saw it in their initial response, we have seen it in the dignity and the courage that has been shown by survivors, and we saw it in the deeply moving scenes at this year’s Notting Hill carnival. For me, the biggest sign that the people of Kensington will not be beaten was the amazing results achieved by local children in their GCSEs and A-levels. I am thinking particularly of a remarkable young woman named Ines Alves, just 16 years old. Her family lost their home in the fire, but she still received a string of top grades, including an A in chemistry despite Ines’ sitting the exam just hours after the burning tower. Ines is due to start her A-levels this month and I wish her all the very best. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Her achievement should be an inspiration to us all. If a teenage schoolgirl who has suffered unimaginable trauma can do something so incredible, we in this House have no excuse for failing to do everything possible to support the victims of Grenfell and to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. I hope all hon. Members will join me in doing just that.

John Healey: I thank the Secretary of State for his letters over the summer and for the advance copy of his statement this afternoon.
Twelve weeks on from the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower, our horror has not lessened. Our determination to support the survivors and see all those culpable called to account is undiminished. Grenfell Tower must mark a change in our country on housing, so that such a tragedy can never happen again. The Secretary of State has three overriding responsibilities, on which we have pressed him ever since the fire: first, to ensure that everyone affected from Grenfell has the help and the rehousing they need; secondly, to reassure everyone living in other tower blocks across the country that their homes are safe, or that work is done to make them safe; and thirdly, to learn the lessons from Grenfell Tower in full.
On help and rehousing, we have been reminded today how vital this is by reports that 20 Grenfell survivors have tried to commit suicide since the fire. Twelve weeks on, how on earth can it be that only 29 households of the 196 from Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk have been rehoused? What is the Secretary of State doing to speed this up and when will all the survivors be offered permanent rehousing? A hotel room is no home and temporary housing is no place to rebuild shattered lives.
On the Government’s fire testing programme, 12 weeks on the Secretary of State still cannot answer the question: how many of the country’s 4,000 tower blocks are safe or not fire safe? He tells us today that 173 high-rise blocks with aluminium-based cladding have now been tested. When will the many more with non-aluminium cladding be tested, so residents will know whether their homes are safe? His testing programme is still too slow, too narrow and too confused to do the job that is needed.
Then there is the question of funding. In the Secretary of State’s last statement to the House, on 20 July, he said of councils’ funding for remedial work:
“If they cannot afford it, they should approach us”—[Official Report, 20 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 1025.]
but that so far he was not aware of a single local authority that had done so. However, at least six councils had already done exactly that. How could the Secretary of State have been so misinformed about his Department that he so misinformed the House? Let me give him another chance. Twelve weeks on, how many councils and housing associations have asked for funding help? How many requests has he agreed? How much has he set aside for financial support?
On lessons, as the Secretary of State has said, over the summer the terms of reference have been published for the Grenfell Tower public inquiry and the independent review of building regulations. I welcome both as Sir Martin Moore-Bick and Dame Judith Hackitt begin their important work, but there are omissions in both. The regulations review fails to recognise the recommendations accepted by the Government at the time from two coroners in 2013 after the deaths in high-rise fires at Lakanal House and Shirley Towers. Four years late, will the Secretary of State act on those recommendations, start the necessary overhaul of building regulations now and incorporate later any further conclusions from the Hackitt review?
On the remit of the public inquiry, we are dismayed that the Government have closed off wider questions on social housing policy. These are exactly the “fundamental issues” the Prime Minister rightly said were raised by the Grenfell Tower fire, and exactly the failings that Grenfell residents and survivors want examined. A hard look at social housing policy is essential to a full understanding of this terrible tragedy, and to making sure it can and does never happen again.

Sajid Javid: First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and his remarks? He shares, I think with the whole House, a determination to do everything we can to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again. He asked questions on three broad areas. Let me take them in turn.
On rehousing, I have to say in all seriousness that I am a bit disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman’s response. Through the letters I sent him throughout the summer, my statement and the work done for the council through Gold Command, we have tried to make it very clear that when it comes to rehousing we will be led by the needs of the residents and the victims of this tragedy. The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is about the needs of the families and not about having statistics that might sound good but may not actually lead to what those people want. I am not going to go through the statistics I shared in the statement. The most important  thing for the families affected is that we first listen to them. They said they want to separate their homes and create more households—especially as many of the homes in Grenfell Tower were overcrowded—and that they want us to deal with that now. It is also right that there is, at the request of residents, a priority system that, for example, puts bereaved families first, and disabled people and families with children second, and that each family is given the time they have asked for to select properties. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have already identified and acquired over 100 properties. These properties are new, and are in Kensington and Chelsea. On top of that, the conversion of temporary properties into permanent homes has been requested. All that is being done at the pace demanded by the residents. We will be led by what the residents actually require.
On the safety of other tower blocks, I will not repeat the numbers I have just shared with the House on the number of tower blocks in the social housing sector owned by either local housing authorities or housing associations. The right hon. Gentleman asked about other types of cladding. There is nothing to stop any housing provider, whether in the public or private sector, sending samples to test any type of cladding. Some have done that, but for all the right and obvious reasons the priority had to be ACM-type cladding. It is right that that was prioritised. It was also correct that we carried out the BR135 systems tests, as well as the limited combustibilities test, to make sure we had a whole joined-up approach.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the public inquiry and the review. Let me start with the review, which is fully independent and is being led by Dame Judith Hackitt. Last week we set out the terms of reference of what will be a very broad review. The intention is that Dame Judith will produce an interim report by the end of this year, followed by a final report in the spring of next year. The work should not be rushed. Dame Judith will set up an advisory panel and carry out the work thoroughly so that we can properly learn the lessons, including lessons from the past and the contents of reports that have been published. We want those matters to be taken into account together, in an independent way.
In the meantime, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, soon after the tragedy we established an independent expert panel to advise on any more urgent immediate action that is required for the purposes of building safety. In the light of developments over the summer, I have decided to extend the term of the panel by at least four months. I want to add further professionals with more experience of building structural safety in the light of what has happened in Southwark, and in particular Ledbury Towers, while retaining the fire safety specialists. I have asked specific questions about structural safety—again, in the light of what we discovered in Southwark—to ensure that we are given any immediate advice that can be used.
It would, of course, be wrong for me to talk about the public inquiry in detail, given that it is rightly being led by a judge, completely independently. However, the right hon. Gentleman raised wider issues involving social housing, and he was absolutely right to do so. Such wider issues need to be addressed, as we know from the Grenfell tragedy and subsequent events, and from what  the House has learnt and discussed in the past. We know about what has happened in Camden, for example, and we now know things about Southwark as well. In due course, I will set out for the House how we intend to deal with those issues.

Amanda Milling: The horrific and tragic events of Grenfell Tower have brought the issue of faulty white goods into even sharper focus. A recent freedom of information request revealed that more than 600 house fires in the midlands had been started by tumble dryers in the last decade. What conversations are my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team having about that issue with their counterparts in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to raise the question of white goods. We have heard, and have seen from the police report on the Grenfell tragedy, how that tragic fire started. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is very much part of the ministerial group that meets weekly to make key decisions about, in particular, building safety. One of the issues involved is that of white goods, and we are working well with the industry and in co-ordination with BEIS.

Angela Crawley: Let me again extend my deepest condolences, and those of my party, to the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire and their families. Responding to such a tragic incident is undoubtedly challenging for any Government, but it is also a test of how a Government can react to ensure that we never find ourselves in the same situation again, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s response to questions about rehousing, testing and building safety.
In Scotland, we have already moved quickly to establish a ministerial working group on building and fire safety to co-ordinate responses to the ongoing investigations. Building standards are devolved, and the cladding that is suspected of contributing to the spread of the fire at Grenfell is not permitted for use on high-rise tower blocks in Scotland. While we are confident that we have stringent building and fire safety regulations, public safety is of paramount importance, and this afternoon the Scottish Government agreed on a programme of work that they will now carry out. They intend to organise a review of the current building standards and the fire safety regulatory framework and a consultation on fire and smoke alarms in Scottish homes, and to introduce a targeted fire safety campaign for residents of high-rise buildings.
The Grenfell Tower fire raised profound concerns about the way in which social housing is managed in England, and lessons must be learned. I welcome the inquiry, but I worry that, without a wider focus, it will fail to get to grips with the causes of the fire and the lack of integrity and confidence that so many of the residents want and deserve. It should have one clear objective: justice for the survivors, victims and families. Will the Secretary of State therefore look again at the terms of reference and include the wider implications of social housing policy, which would mean examining social and political conditions including the provision and state of social housing in England? Will he also note that fire safety tests have concluded that more than 200 buildings are at risk of fire? The Government must  act to ensure that people living in those buildings are adequately supported. What support does the Secretary of State plan to provide for the people in those at-risk buildings?
Reports that survivors and witnesses are suffering from mental ill health as a result of the tragedy is hugely distressing. Post-traumatic stress disorder will undoubtedly play a part in the aftermath, and I urge the Government to look again at the support mechanisms that are currently in place for those affected. The Secretary of State has said that he is open to suggestions about expert input. How will the Government help the local authority to provide counselling services for survivors and witnesses, and what additional funds have been provided for mental health support services?
We have heard that families are still living in hotels, and there are reports of consequential mental ill health, a lack of emotional support and a lack of confidence in the Government's terms of reference. Surely the Government must deliver actions and answers to give people confidence in the system again.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady has raised a number of issues. Let me start with her points about Scotland and the safety of buildings. As she rightly said, building regulations are a devolved matter, but that does not prevent England and Scotland, and other devolved areas, from working together on common issues. In my statement, I mentioned some of the problems identified by the British Board of Agrément in relation to the structural safety of cladding following incidents in Glasgow. We are working together through the Ministerial Working Group on Building and Fire Safety, which meets regularly. Its meetings obviously include discussion of Scotland and other devolved areas, and will continue to do so.
The hon. Lady asked about social housing and the remit of the public inquiry. As she will know, the inquiry’s terms of reference are set independently by the judge. They were accepted in full, without amendment, by the Prime Minister, and rightly so. That said, the hon. Lady—and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne—raised the issue of longer-term social housing; we will report to the House on that in due course.
The hon. Lady understandably raised the issue of counselling and mental health support. In the wake of the Grenfell tragedy, that support is being led by the local NHS trust. The work is being co-ordinated through GPs, pop-up clinics and a 24-hour hotline. However, there has also been a desire to get out there and make sure that the authorities are not waiting for people to come to them, and that people know what services are available. Thousands of doors have been knocked on, including hotel doors, and facilities have been set up in hotels. That process will continue so that everyone who needs help knows that it is available, and will receive it.
Lastly, the hon. Lady mentioned at-risk buildings and the need to ensure that any remedial work is done. We are monitoring that in the case of public sector buildings, and the same process will be applied to those in the private sector when problems are identified. The work will, of course, require funds. That allows me to return to a question asked by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne about the funding of local authorities and others to ensure that they can continue  to do the work that is necessary: I apologise for not addressing it earlier. As has been made clear from this Dispatch Box before, all local authorities and housing associations are expected to carry out immediately, without delay, any essential works that are required. We have said from the start that when there are funding issues they should approach us, and we will look at ways of trying to support them.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question earlier about the number of local authorities that have approached us. We have been approached directly or indirectly by 27 local authorities—either by the authority itself, or in some cases by their local Members of Parliament—and so far we are in more detailed discussions with six of those local authorities.
As for housing associations, we have made it clear that they should approach the social housing regulator. The regulator has written to every housing association and said that that should be the starting point of any financial discussions. As of today, the social housing regulator has told us that no housing association has approached it with financial viability concerns over fire safety.

Mike Penning: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, not least because it gives me my first opportunity to put on record that my thoughts and prayers are with the community and those who have lost their loved ones and those who have been injured in the Grenfell disaster. I also want to put on record my admiration for the emergency services. I am a former member of the fire service; we were never trained to do this sort of tower block fire, and some of the things they saw will be with them for the rest of their lives. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to assure me that all emergency services personnel will have the suitable support they will need as they go forward, because post-traumatic stress will be with many of them for the rest of their lives.

Sajid Javid: I can assure my hon. Friend—

Mike Penning: Right hon. Friend.

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend, of course: I can assure him that such support is being provided to all emergency workers, and I join him in commending once again the work of the fire service workers in particular. We will continue to make sure they get all the support required, including, of course, counselling. This point allows me to highlight the work being done by voluntary sectors, including in Cornwall recently. The Cornwall Hugs Grenfell response led by Esme Page shows what communities can do, because through that response, as well as helping the victims of Grenfell, they reached out to fire service workers in London.

Emma Dent Coad: I acknowledge the work of the Government to date over the summer, when I was also working on this, of course. However, I have two issues of outstanding concern. It is clear that the rehousing of Grenfell survivors and evacuees has fallen disgracefully behind schedule, and we know that some of the homes offered to them within three weeks were completely unsuitable. The school year began today and students will shortly be beginning university from inadequate accommodation in hotels, with no space to study. Their grades will suffer, as will those of the young  man who was taking his GCSEs on the morning of the fire, who arrived at school in his underwear and was given clothes to wear. He did not have the fabulous good fortune of the efforts of the young woman the Secretary of State spoke about; he has had no consideration, and has lost his place at school, which I find disgraceful.
As well as hearing the Secretary of State’s response on that, I would like him to address the issue of the provision of mental health services. The so far unsubstantiated press story we have heard today about the potential number of attempted suicides is very unsettling for a community still under huge stress. While the NHS foundation trust rebuttal today stated that nearly 4,000 people have been contacted, there are still many survivors and their families who feel forgotten and neglected, and who are not getting help. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that trust is restored among these very vulnerable people and they get the help they need?

Sajid Javid: First, may I take this opportunity from this Dispatch Box to thank the hon. Lady for the work she has been doing ever since this tragedy happened to bring comfort to her constituents? We will continue to work with her closely. She mentioned an education case and a young man who has been excluded from school; if she can bring forward any details of that to my team, we will certainly take a careful look, as that kind of thing should absolutely not be happening.
The hon. Lady asked specifically about mental health support. I talked about that just a moment ago, but she is right to highlight it, because it is one of the key things we must all work together on, through the councils, the NHS trusts and the Government, to make sure it is being provided to all who need it. I can after this statement send the hon. Lady even more details about what exactly is being done. If she wants to discuss the matter further, we are happy to do that with her, but the work the NHS trust in particular has done is important, especially by reaching out to residents through the process of knocking on doors, going to hotels and engaging the Samaritans as well to provide a different avenue of support that might be more welcome by certain residents. But it is also important to continue to look for other ways to provide that support.

Anne Main: The Building Research Establishment is in my constituency, and I know what an excellent job it does on this and many other issues to do with building safety. The Secretary of State talked in his statement about each system when properly fitted; what further advice is he giving to councils to ensure that contractors are correctly fitting and retrofitting buildings and ensuring inspections are carried out not just on the materials used, but on the implementation or any compromises made over time?

Sajid Javid: I join my hon. Friend in commending the work of BRE. I went to see some of its facilities myself and was impressed by how it has approached these systems tests and how quickly it was able to conduct them. She is right to ask about contractors and implementing some of the early lessons we have learned. The advice we have received from the independent expert panel has been sent out to building groups and industry groups, and shared with all local authorities.  One further thing we have done today is publish a consolidated note of all the building safety advice that has come out in recent weeks, to make sure it is in one place and is easily accessible.

David Lammy: Many people in the House who have dealt with bereavement will know that it is about three months later, after the initial shock, when things really kick in, and that is what I heard from the father of my friend who died in Grenfell Tower this week.
We hear reports of suicide attempts, and I know that in the community people are talking about self-medication. The Secretary of State’s statement did not include anything about health assessments, bereavement counselling and those services to support those people; will he make all that information available to the House by placing it in the Library in the coming days?

Sajid Javid: I always listen very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, particularly on this issue. He has made a number of good points on this in the past, as has just done so again today. A huge amount of support has been put in place in terms of bereavement, such as through the family bereavement centre that has been set up. If he has any other ideas or suggestions that he thinks we could follow, we will happily look at them. In response to his request to put in the House more details, I will happily do that.

Henry Smith: On building safety and testing, what work has been carried out for those buildings across the country that have been converted under permitted development rights?

Sajid Javid: We have not differentiated between whether or not the buildings were converted under permitted development rights; our focus is on all buildings regardless of how they came to be residential housing. As I said in my statement, it has been more straightforward to find out what residential towers there are and the types of cladding in the public sector, but less straightforward in the private sector. That is why on 11 August I wrote to all chief executives of local authorities in England asking them to immediately start working on compiling information on the private sector residential towers in their area and the type of cladding they have, and to share that information with us, and also to remind them of the enforcement powers they already have to make sure all these buildings, including in the private sector, are safe.

Karen Buck: There remains a real concern about the clarity regarding the testing process, including what is being tested and the relationship between the materials and the whole building in a real-world context, such as whether the impact of fire safety in respect of cladded buildings takes into effect the design of windows. It does not give me a great deal of confidence that the Fire Protection Association has now started to consider doing its own tests because of its concerns about the Government’s testing. This is a real worry for residents—thousands of residents—in my tower blocks and in others.
May I ask a very specific question about the role of the fire authorities in this? Are the Secretary of State and his Department liaising with fire authorities across the country and receiving regular briefings from them,  and have there been any cases where fire authorities have recommended a change to the “stay put” policy during the process of testing, and the removal of, cladding?

Sajid Javid: We have been very open in sharing information on what the testing process is and why it is important, as well as sharing the results that are coming out of the process. For example, as each of the systems tests took place over the summer, we provided an update as soon as the results were made available to us through the Building Research Establishment. We contacted each of the relevant local authorities and housing associations to ensure that we could answer any further questions they might have. As I said earlier, I have also decided to publish today a consolidated note giving details of the testing processes and the subsequent results and advice. I am also asking the expert panel to think about this further, especially in the light of some of the structural—as opposed to fire safety—issues that have emerged in recent weeks. The hon. Lady asked about fire authorities. We are working closely with them, and the head of the National Fire Chiefs Council is a member of the expert panel and of the building safety ministerial group, which I chair. We continue to get advice from those sources, and as and when any of the advice that they share with us changes, that will be published.

Eddie Hughes: It is impossible for us to imagine the suffering of the bereaved who lost loved ones on the night of the Grenfell Tower fire but who still do not know their fate with any certainty. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that everything is being done to identify the victims as quickly as possible?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this point. This is one of the most challenging aspects of the tragedy, and as I said in my statement, we commend the people who are doing this work and the dignity and speed with which they are doing it.

Andrew Slaughter: Will the Secretary of State admit that he has only scratched the surface of the scandal surrounding building regulations for cladding and insulation? We have allowed tall buildings to be clad with combustible materials that would not be allowed in almost any other European country. He has failed to test all classes of cladding and insulation that are more flammable than those used at Grenfell, and I think that that includes any internal wall insulation. Will he publish a full, comprehensive schedule of cladding and insulation types, detailing their combustibility and where they are being used, so that we can judge independently what still needs to be done to make tower blocks safe?

Sajid Javid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a lot still to be learned about building safety and building regulations. There are a lot of lessons to learn, and that is exactly why we have the independent review, which is being led by Dame Judith Hackitt. We have also asked the Building Research Establishment to start publishing historical data on other cladding systems, as well as testing them, to ensure that we can learn the lessons about them as well.

Robert Courts: I am sure that all Members will have been shocked by the revelation that 1,000 fire doors were found to be missing from towers in Camden. Does not this raise wider questions about the maintenance of premises in Camden and other areas by landlords who should know better?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of this wider issue of building safety that goes beyond any one local authority. He mentions the issue that has been unearthed in Camden, and I mentioned earlier the issues in Ledbury Towers in Southwark. There are a number of building safety issues across a number of local authorities, and that is why there are so many lessons to be learned.

Catherine West: The Secretary of State has said that 165 tower blocks in the public sector have failed the systems test. What is the figure in the private sector across England and Wales?

Sajid Javid: That figure of 165 does indeed relate to the public sector, so those buildings are owned by either a local authority or a housing association. In the private sector, 89 buildings have been tested so far, of which 85 have failed and four have passed. That is only 89, however; there are obviously thousands of private sector buildings, and that is why we have asked all local authorities to conduct an audit of properties in their area and to work with us on a process to enable us to monitor this situation.

Philip Hollobone: The horror of the Grenfell Tower fire has, sadly, provided us with a tragic snapshot of the state of high-rise social housing in Britain today. In his statement, the Secretary of State said that 151 homes were lost to the fire, but that 196 households had asked to be rehoused. That presumably means that one third of the homes in the tower were overcrowded. My question to him is: how can that level of overcrowding be permitted to exist in one of the richest boroughs in the land? Is there no means of control over the local authority, either internally or externally? What is now being done in the aftermath of the fire to address similar overcrowding in other high-rise blocks?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. He is right to say that 151 homes were lost and that we are now looking for 196 homes. That is not entirely due to overcrowding, however. It is partly due to the fact that a number of families have requested to split their households. In many situations, for example, they have asked for separate accommodation for the young adults in the household. In every case, we have accepted those requests. He is right to raise the issue of overcrowding, however, and we are determined to take a much wider look at social housing.

Wera Hobhouse: I thank the Secretary of State for his update. He is absolutely right to praise the outstanding results achieved by Inês Alves, but it would be wrong of us to expect such resilience from everyone. I agree with the concerns raised about the emotional wellbeing of the people suffering from post-traumatic stress who have not received proper support. I have a separate question, however. Does the Minister have  plans to address the question of the many empty homes in Kensington and Chelsea and elsewhere? This is unacceptable when there are so many families in need of a permanent home.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will know that there are already measures in place to deal with empty homes and to provide incentives for them not to be left empty. In terms of finding the necessary homes following the Grenfell tragedy, considerable progress has been made over the summer in acquiring mostly new homes in Kensington Row, Hortensia Road and elsewhere. A considerable amount of work has also been done to convert some of the temporary homes into permanent ones, at the residents’ request.

Paul Flynn: The statement reports that the weaknesses discovered following the Ronan Point collapse have not been fully addressed or remedied. That collapse took place nearly 50 years ago. We also read that 165 existing tower blocks have the same combustibility and dangers that existed at Grenfell. Does not this show a continuing catastrophic failure of building regulations? Do we not need an examination not only of combustibility but of all the other structural problems that are likely to affect those who have the misfortune to live in multi-storey blocks?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this matter. This is precisely why I have asked for an independent review of building regulations. Also, in the light of the discovery at Ledbury Towers in Southwark, I have written to Dame Judith Hackitt and asked her to ensure that she considers those types of structural considerations. As well as building regulations, there are also wider questions. The issue at Ledbury Towers was discovered because of Grenfell Tower, but it is a structural issue. The work should have been done after the Ronan Point disaster, and there are some really big questions for the local authority to answer. The cracks that were discovered were large enough to put a human hand through or to put books in. Those cracks did not appear overnight. They had been there for some time—months, or even years. How can it be that the local authority was seemingly able to act only after the Grenfell tragedy?

Paula Sherriff: The Secretary of State has furnished us with information about the number of residential housing blocks that have failed under the safety regime, but will he tell us how many other public buildings, including hospitals, libraries, shopping centres and even schools, have failed the test and what he is doing about it?

Sajid Javid: I can tell the hon. Lady that I am aware of 16 public buildings that have failed the test so far, and other public buildings may come in for further testing. This talks to a wider problems, however, because we are seeing a huge rate of failure, as I have said, across the board in both the public and private sectors and in residential and commercial buildings.

Matt Western: Twelve weeks ago, when I heard the Prime Minister try to encourage local authorities to get in touch and to put  forward samples for testing, I put it to her that encouragement was not the right route to take and that we should be mandating, but it still seems that we are inviting local authorities or housing associations to submit material. The public inquiry will inform us of its findings, but I am concerned by the significant under-investment in our council properties and social housing stock, which I can speak about from experience in my constituency. I therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the right course of action would be to undertake a full independent audit of all aspects of safety in the 4,000 blocks, hospitals, student residences and other buildings, because just one item is being considered. Surely that is the least that we owe to the families.

Sajid Javid: The process of testing the buildings that have been similarly clad is not voluntary. It has not been voluntary for the public sector; it has been a requirement of all local authorities and housing associations. Clearly, not one has refused, so there is nothing voluntary about it. It is important that we keep looking at how to continue the process, in particular to capture much more of the private sector, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Lisa Cameron: As a psychologist, I am particularly concerned by the number of residents—those who witnessed things or lost loved ones—who have tried to harm themselves. Survivor guilt will become a real issue. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for psychology, I wonder whether the Secretary of State has spoken to the British Psychological Society. There is so much expertise around the country, and I am sure that it would be only too willing to help and lend that expertise where it is required.

Sajid Javid: I agree with the hon. Lady’s point about the importance of that type of support. Some of the reports that we have heard, including today, are worrying, so we must ensure that we are providing counselling and mental health support to all who need it. As for the experts that we have spoken to, the work is being led by my colleagues in the Department of Health and they are part of the overall response group, but I will be sure to pass on her thoughts to the Secretary of State for Health.

Sylvia Hermon: I commend the Secretary of State on the great compassion and sensitivity that he has shown in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. I want to seek clarification on one particular matter from his statement: the permanent accommodation that is on offer to residents. Is the rent for the permanent accommodation so high that it is acting as a deterrent to families in accepting the offers? Bearing in mind the last sentence in his statement, which said that the House should put no obstacle in the way of helping the residents of the tower, the Government should pay those rents.

Sajid Javid: I first thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments. As for rents, we have made it clear that all properties, whether permanent or temporary, will be rent-free for the first year. Following the first year, no former tenant of Grenfell Tower or Grenfell Walk will pay a penny more than they previously paid in rent.

KOREAN PENINSULA

Boris Johnson: With your permission, I should like to make a statement about the situation on the Korean peninsula.
At noon on Sunday, local time, North Korea tested the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated in the history of the regime’s quest for an illegal arsenal. The underground explosion at a testing site only 60 miles from the Chinese border triggered an earthquake measuring up to 6.3 on the Richter scale—10 times more powerful than the tremor created by the last detonation. The regime claimed to have exploded a hydrogen bomb capable of being delivered on an intercontinental ballistic missile. We should treat that claim with scepticism, but the House must be under no illusion that this latest test marks another perilous advance in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. In a country blighted by decades of communist economic failure, where in the 1990s hundreds of thousands of people died of starvation or were reduced to eating grass and leaves to survive, the regime has squandered its resources on building an illegal armoury of nuclear bombs. The House will want to join me in condemning a nuclear test that poses a grave threat to the security of every country in east Asia and the wider world.
Earlier today, the North Korean ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office to receive a formal protest. Members will recall the steady drumbeat of provocative and dangerous actions by Kim Jong-un’s regime. Last year, North Korea tested two nuclear weapons and launched 24 missiles. So far this year, the regime has fired 18 missiles, including two of intercontinental range. Indeed, three tests have taken place since the House rose in July. On Monday last week, a missile flew over Japan, causing sirens to sound on Hokkaido and forcing thousands of people to take cover. The regime has threatened to launch more missiles towards the US Pacific territory of Guam, which is home to 180,000 people and two military bases. I commend the dignity and restraint shown by South Korea and Japan, the countries which find themselves in the firing line of Pyongyang’s reckless ambitions.
North Korea’s brazen defiance has brought universal condemnation. When the UN Security Council met in emergency session yesterday, every member, including China and Russia, denounced the latest nuclear test. Britain has been at the heart of mobilising world opinion with the aim of achieving a diplomatic solution. Last week, I spoke to my Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, and the Japanese Foreign Minister, Taro Kono. A few hours after the nuclear test on Sunday, I spoke to the South Korean Foreign Minister, Kang Kyung-wha, and I have of course been in regular contact with Secretary Tillerson of the United States.
During the Prime Minister’s highly successful visit to Tokyo last week, my right hon. Friend made clear our solidarity with Japan as it faces this grave threat. Just as North Korea has pursued nuclear weapons with single-minded determination, so the international community must show the same resolve in our pursuit of a diplomatic solution. We should not be diverted by arguments that equate the illegal and aggressive actions of Pyongyang with the legitimate and defensive military exercises of South Korea and the United States. North Korea has  caused this crisis and the onus rests squarely on Kim Jong-un’s regime to obey international law and meet their obligations to disarm.
All hopes for progress rest on international co-operation, and there are some encouraging signs. On 5 August, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2371, including the toughest sanctions ever imposed on North Korea, banning exports of coal, seafood, iron ore and lead. If fully enforced, those new measures would cost Pyongyang about $1 billion—one third of that country’s total export earnings—reducing the resources available for nuclear weapons. We are now pressing the Security Council to pass a new resolution, as swiftly as possible, imposing further sanctions and showing the unity and determination of the international community.
China, which accounts for 90% of North Korea’s overseas trade, has a unique ability to influence the North Korean regime, and the House can take heart from the fact that Beijing voted in favour of the latest sanctions resolution and condemned Pyongyang’s actions in the most unsparing terms. North Korea’s nuclear device was not only tested near China’s border but was detonated on the day President Xi Jinping opened a summit in Xiamen with the leaders of Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa. I call on China to use all its leverage to ensure a peaceful settlement of this grave crisis.
Kim Jong-un claims to want security and prosperity for North Korea’s people. The only way to achieve that goal would be for North Korea to obey the UN and halt its nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programmes, disarming in a complete and verifiable manner. Britain stands alongside our allies in striving to achieve that goal, and I commend this statement to the House.

Emily Thornberry: Before I respond to the Foreign Secretary, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to the families of all those killed over the summer in the terrorist attacks in Barcelona and across the world, including seven-year-old Julian Cadman. Given the subject we are discussing, it does us all well to remember that some 8 million children like Julian, under the age of 10, live on the Korean peninsula today.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in unreservedly condemning North Korea for the flagrant breaches of international law that have brought us to this sorry pass. I have three questions prompted by his statement. First, although he mentioned the new sanctions regime agreed on 5 August, he will know that we are still in the early stages of enforcing the last set of sanctions agreed last November. Indeed, only 80 countries have so far submitted implementation reports on the new sanctions regime, so how does he propose to ensure that these new sanctions are implemented quickly and effectively and given time to work?
Secondly, on the strategy outlined by the Foreign Secretary, he will have seen the article today by his predecessor, William Hague, considering whether the strategic goal will eventually shift from preventing North Korea achieving nuclear capability to accepting that that capability exists and seeking, in some form, to contain it. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with his predecessor? Has the Foreign Office planned for that scenario?
Thirdly, given the threat to Japan and South Korea, the Foreign Secretary will be aware of the suggestion that they should now be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons as a response to Pyongyang. Does he agree with me that that would be utter madness? Surely it cannot be a serious suggestion that the world’s response to North Korea breaching the non-proliferation treaty should be to encourage other countries to do the same. Surely our goal must be the denuclearisation of the entire region.
Beyond the substance of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, I welcome its careful and judicious tone. After a summer of utterly reckless rhetoric from Washington and Pyongyang, we urgently need some cool heads and calm words, especially now that we have drifted from that dangerous escalation of rhetoric into the even more dangerous escalation of actions. With every ratcheting up of words and deeds, the risk grows. That escalation will lead to miscalculation and a war will begin, not by design but by default.
Faced with that situation, we are told that all options remain under consideration and that no options have been ruled out, but if any of those options risks 10 million people in Seoul being, in the Foreign Secretary’s words, “vaporised”, or similar devastation in North Korea and Japan, we have to say that those options should be in the bin. The reality is that the only sane option is, as William Hague wrote today, dialogue and diplomacy. That means a deliberate de-escalation of rhetoric and actions, it means properly enforcing the new sanctions regime, and it means restarting the six-party talks to seek a new and lasting settlement.
Yet we have a US ambassador to the UN who says,
“the time for talk is over.”
We have a President who says,
“talking is not the answer”.
Although in his case I would usually be inclined to agree, for the US to turn its back on diplomacy at this stage is simply irresponsible and, as its closest ally, we must be prepared to say so.
Although we welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, the real test is what comes next. Will Britain be a voice of calm and reason on the world stage? Will we ally ourselves with Angela Merkel? She told the German Parliament today:
“there can only be a peaceful and diplomatic solution”.
If the answer is yes, and if that is the route the Government take, they will have our full support; but if they pretend that military options involving decapitation, annihilation, fire and fury belong anywhere but in the bin, and if they swear blind loyalty to Donald Trump no matter what abyss he drags us towards, they will be risking a hell of a lot more than just losing our support. I urge the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues to remain calm and judicious in their approach, to discount all so-called military solutions and to steer a course towards the only options that work: dialogue, diplomacy and peace.

Boris Johnson: I join the right hon. Lady in the sentiments she expresses on the victims of terror across our continent over the summer months. There is a lot in her reply with which I agree, and she is certainly right to commend a measured tone in these things. In her focus on Washington and the pronouncements of Donald Trump, it is important that we do not allow anything to  distract this House from the fundamental responsibility of Pyongyang for causing this crisis. It is a great shame that there should be any suggestion of any kind of equivalence in the confrontation—I am sure she did not mean to imply that—and it is important that we do not allow that to creep into our considerations.
The current situation is so grave because it is the first time in the history of nuclear weaponry that a non-P5 country seems to be on the brink of acquiring the ability to use an ICBM equipped with a nuclear warhead. This is a very grave situation, which explains why we are told, and we must agree, that theoretically no options are off the table, but it is also essential—the right hon. Lady is right about this—that we pursue the peaceful diplomatic resolution that we all want.
In the history of North Korea’s attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon over the past 30 years there have been flare-ups and crises, and then they have been managed down again. We hope that in the UN, with the help of our Chinese friends and the rest of the international community, we can once again freeze this North Korean nuclear programme and manage the crisis down again. I share the emphasis on peaceful resolution that the right hon. Lady espouses.

Thomas Tugendhat: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. I associate myself very much with his hopes, but I should lay out some of my concerns.
I find myself, for the first time, talking in this House about nuclear weapons that may be used, because we are talking not about a state but about a family cult with a kingdom. This is a very different type of relationship between the leaders and the led. It is a country that is prepared to see its people starve and is perfectly happy to see them literally eat grass. We are not dealing with a rational actor. That imposes an enormous amount on Her Majesty’s Government, of course, and on partners in the region.
I particularly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s conversation with the Chinese. What indications are there that they are prepared actually to apply the sanctions to which they have agreed? At the moment, the indications are poor. As we are one of the few nations with an embassy in Pyongyang, what assistance is our ambassador there giving to other members of the Security Council? This is a time for as much openness as possible among allies, in order to manage a very dangerous situation. Perhaps I may ask a more specific question, given the proximity of our relationship with the United States: will the Foreign Secretary mention the presence, or otherwise, of British troops serving alongside American troops in South Korea and Japan? Will he discuss whether those embeds are in any way operationally involved in the American chain, and whether or not they would be? This is a moment for the Helsinki example of the 1980s. I very much hope he can find a way for the supports to Kennedy and Khrushchev to be seen today.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his compendious question. He rightly says that we are one of the few countries to have an embassy in Pyongyang—we are the only P3 country with an embassy there. As such, we are determined to keep that embassy going, and I hope the House will share our determination to keep it going, along with support for other P5 countries, and for  other western interests in that city and in North Korea. Let me pick out his most important question; I do not wish to comment on British forces’ operational activities. I think he is really driving at the question of whether the Chinese have yet played all the cards they have in their hand. China controls 93% of North Korea’s external trade. It is a simple fact that North Korea is wholly dependent on imported oil. In the end, the Chinese do have much further to go on this. There are ways in which they can tighten the economic ligature; they can make more of a difference. The question in their minds is whether they can do that without incurring serious political convulsions within North Korea. We think there is room for further Chinese effort. We are working with our Chinese friends to persuade them to do this. To be fair to the Chinese, I must say that they have shown a much greater willingness than they have hitherto to understand the threat that North Korea poses and to take action. To that extent, the Chinese should be commended.

Chris Law: It is very apparent that the international community needs to act immediately to ensure that all sides exercise restraint and return to diplomatic dialogue. The most effective means of reducing tensions would be for the North Korean regime to immediately suspend its nuclear development and testing, and we join the majority of the international community in urging it to do just that. We also take note of the numerous calls for even tougher UN sanctions to be imposed on North Korea. However, to be most effective, increased sanctions should be accompanied by reinforced six-party talks and renewed efforts to reach a peaceful diplomatic solution. Moreover, the UK Government must use their much-vaunted “special relationship” with the United States and influence their friend Donald Trump to drastically calm his rhetoric. If that relationship is worth anything—if the UK has any sort of genuine influence in the White House—the UK Government must use it now to walk President Trump back from the unacceptable threats he has made and to bring some modicum of rationality to his dialogue. If the UK Government are unable or unwilling to make a constructive intervention, that would make a mockery of the so-called “special relationship” and of the much-vaunted “global Britain”.
Finally, this crisis is a stark reminder of the danger posed by nuclear weapons and must be harnessed to intensify efforts towards multilateral disarmament and achieving global zero. The recent UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons was a major achievement. Will the UK Government therefore take this opportunity to demonstrate real leadership on the international stage, and demonstrate that to all of us, by choosing to become the first nuclear-armed state to sign the UN treaty and to commit to legally binding nuclear disarmament? It is worth reiterating that the people of Scotland live side by side with nuclear weapons every day. On their behalf, my colleagues and I in the Scottish National party urge the UK Government to sign up to the UN treaty without delay.

Boris Johnson: On the American point, let me just say that it is vital that we keep the focus of our attention on Pyongyang’s primacy of responsibility for causing this crisis; anything else is a distraction. As for nuclear  disarmament, let me make a comment I might direct to those on the Opposition Benches: surely to goodness this crisis shows the folly of unilateral nuclear disarmament. That is one of their policies and it would open up this country and others to nuclear blackmail from North Korea.

Hugo Swire: It is more than 10 years since the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea tested its first nuclear weapon, and I am afraid that we have been paying the price for being caught like rabbits in the headlights; every time the DPRK has advanced its technology, we have somehow wished it was not happening and turned the other way. So we are where we are now, and I fully understand the US reluctance to reassemble the six-party talks, because previous such talks have been so thwarted by the DPRK. In all fairness, I must say that there have been some successes during those talks. If we look at the other options—containment; living with the DPRK as a de facto nuclear-armed state; or military action—we see that we owe it to the whole world to try to reassemble the six-party talks. We can empty-chair the DPRK if it does not turn up, but we must show that we are making one last huge push before other options are pursued.

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we are paying the price for previous complacency on this question. He is also absolutely right to say that we have had success in the past; we have shown that diplomacy and engagement can make a difference. We intend to pursue that path.

Barry Sheerman: I urge the Foreign Secretary to carry on that quiet diplomacy. This must be one of the most frightening times in world history, as we really could be in a situation where a country such as North Korea would launch a missile. I want quiet diplomacy, but may I get the message across to the Foreign Secretary that that means working assiduously with all our allies? Yes, we must have serious conversations with the United States—that is unavoidable —but we must also work with all our friends and allies in Europe, particularly the Germans, the French and others, and particularly with NATO. We have heard very little about NATO in the recent days and weeks.

Boris Johnson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to learn that I had long conversations last night with our Swedish friends—as he knows, they also have an embassy in Pyongyang—in addition to various other European colleagues.

Julian Lewis: May I urge the Foreign Secretary to cheer up a bit and to cast his mind back 53 years to 1964, when red China, led by Mao Tse Tung, who was every bit as much of a murderous maniac as the current leader of North Korea is, was about to acquire nuclear weapons? May I ask my right hon. Friend to face up to a couple of hard facts? First, he is clearly right to say that North Korea is determined on this path. Secondly, he is clearly right to say that China could stop it, but probably will not do so. Thirdly, if North Korea is determined to get nuclear weapons, it will get them and, what is more, we will deter it from using them. That is what happened with China, which we are now looking at as our friends, when it used to be led by exactly the same sort of regime.

Boris Johnson: I, of course, hugely admire the sangfroid of my right hon. Friend and his natural optimism. I hope he will forgive me if I, none the less, continue with what I think is the settled view of this House: that we should pursue all diplomatic and peaceful means available to us to try to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Edward Davey: I have been talking to my many Korean constituents. May I tell the Foreign Secretary how alarmed they are and how worried they are for their families back in Korea and for their country? In rightly emphasising the case for a diplomatic solution, does he feel that the actions of President Trump are encouraging Beijing to go further, or are there other recommendations and approaches he would make to the White House to encourage China to do what only China can do?

Boris Johnson: As it happens, I think it is important that the United States says, as it does at the moment, that all options are on the table, but it is clearly the overwhelming desire of the US Administration to get a peaceful resolution to this crisis. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reassure his constituents in south London—I remember them well from when I used to represent them myself—that we are doing everything we can to protect South Korea.

Crispin Blunt: I commend the tone of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I commend to him a strategy of trying to ensure that Pyongyang pays an ongoing price for this gross breach of the non-proliferation treaty. If there is a war option, it should be pretty clear that it must be North Korea that starts it.

Boris Johnson: I absolutely accept that point; the alternative is deeply undesirable, and not one that I think would commend itself to anybody in this House.

Stephen Doughty: It is clear not only that North Korea has developed much of its missile and nuclear capacity domestically, but that the country has received both physical and intellectual external assistance for its missile and nuclear programmes. Is the Foreign Secretary convinced that we have done all we can to intercept such help and to prevent North Korea from receiving further assistance?

Boris Johnson: We need to enforce the existing sanctions, as well as put new pressure on North Korea. There is currently an investigation into exactly how the country has managed to make this leap in technological ability. We are looking at the possible role that may have been played, inadvertently or otherwise, by some current and former nuclear states.

Mark Francois: It is clear that the House hopes overwhelmingly for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but the Foreign Secretary said that we stand by our allies; have we received any requests for potential military support from South Korea, Japan or, indeed, the United States? If so, what has been our response?

Boris Johnson: We have received no such requests so far, and our intention is to try to avoid the circumstances in which they could be made.

Sammy Wilson: It is a great pity that some Opposition Members have chosen this occasion to attack the President of the United States, rather than those who caused the current crisis: the North Koreans.
The effect of sanctions is likely to be limited because we are dealing with a deranged, selfish leader who cares little about the suffering in his own country. Will the Secretary of State tell us what assessment has been made of who is helping the North Koreans to develop their bombs and missiles? What steps will we take against those countries if it is shown that they are helping this tyrant in his aspiration to have the means to strike other countries?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman asks an extremely good question. As I indicated in my answer a moment ago, we are looking into that very question. We have our suspicions, but as yet we have no hard information.

Christopher Chope: The financial burden of implementing UN resolution 2371 will largely fall on China. What proposals are there, from our friends elsewhere and from within our country, to help China to meet those costs? It is easy for us to say, “They won’t do it,” but surely we can do something to say, “If you take that step, we will do something to help you.”

Boris Johnson: I understand my hon. Friend’s good and interesting point. At the moment we think that the cost to China is pretty minimal in comparison with the impact on North Korea, but if that is raised by our Chinese friends, we will certainly consider it.

Madeleine Moon: The Foreign Secretary may be aware that I am due to visit South Korea in the near future, with NATO allies. Who does he see as having the major responsibility for dealing with the crisis—is it America, the United Nations, or alliances from around the world? Who will spearhead the diplomatic effort, and will he give us a clear idea of where we sit in that?

Boris Johnson: I wish the hon. Lady every success in her trip to South Korea. When she goes there, I am sure she will have a clear feeling of the imminence of the threat posed by North Korea, not only with nuclear weapons but with conventional weapons. The answer to her question is simple: the two most important actors outside the Korean peninsula are of course China and the US. But the UK can play an important role in trying to bridge the gap between them and unite the international community around a common position.

Richard Graham: The current Chinese ambassador to the Court of St James’s, Liu Xiaoming, has often made it clear that in his previous role as ambassador to Pyongyang the North Koreans were incredibly difficult to work with on almost everything. Given the timing of North Korea’s latest missile test, which could scarcely have been less convenient for Xi Jinping, does my right hon. Friend really believe that the Chinese have been able to exercise any restraint on Kim Jong-un so far and will be able to do so in future?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend speaks with great experience of the region and is entirely right in his analysis of the timing of the test and the effect it was meant to have on Xi Jinping and the Chinese leadership. That does not mean, though, that we should discount the Chinese ability to affect events in North Korea and China’s potential to do more.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: In the current situation, China has enormous power in the form of the 500,000 tonnes of crude oil that it exports to North Korea every year. What further steps can the Foreign Secretary take to encourage China to exercise that enormous power?

Boris Johnson: The best thing we can do is to continue our work with the UN Security Council, at which the Chinese have so far been absolutely in step with us. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on oil, which we think is the next opportunity.

Philip Hollobone: Do we believe that Kim Jong-un is a rational actor? Perhaps more importantly, does China believe he is?

Boris Johnson: I do not think we can simply assume he is totally irrational. We have to hope that he is willing to take the interests of his people—the suffering people of North Korea—into account and that in the end he is willing to protect their interests. We have to ascribe some kind of rationality and humanity to him in the end.

Catherine West: What lessons can be learned from the difficult negotiations with Iran, a country that was also described as being part of the axis of evil by President Bush some years ago?

Boris Johnson: That is a wonderful illustration of the vital importance of maintaining the joint comprehensive plan of action—the deal to restrict the development of Iran’s nuclear weapons that, as everybody knows, has been the subject of some controversy in Washington and that has been deprecated by some members of Congress. The value of coming to such arrangements with potential nuclear powers is evident.

Rehman Chishti: Following on from that point, North Korea and Iran signed an agreement on science and technology co-operation in 2012. The Foreign Secretary said that certain countries are suspected of supporting North Korea’s weapons programmes; will he clarify whether Iran is one of those countries? When will the investigations into those suspicions be concluded so that everyone knows who those countries are and what action will be taken against them?

Boris Johnson: Tempted though I am, I do not think I can comment on that otherwise excellent question.

Tony Lloyd: The regime in Pyongyang is most certainly unpalatable, but it is important to remember that it may not be totally irrational. The Foreign Secretary’s alignment of Beijing’s policy with our own approach to the matter is commendable; is it worth considering what kind of security guarantees can  be offered to North Korea? Trying to get a diplomatic solution means we have to allow for the possibility that there are some people in North Korea who take a rational view of their own future.

Boris Johnson: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but we cannot get into the business of offering security guarantees to the North Korean regime when it is currently threatening to destroy New York and other cities and countries around the world.

Richard Drax: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this dramatic rise in the threat should send a powerful message to our NATO allies to meet their spending commitments?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely. Spot on.

Jo Swinson: The nuclear escalation by North Korea is appalling and terrifying, especially to a generation that is too young to have lived through the fear of the cold war. When China is a voice of calm and even Russia is more measured than the US, it speaks volumes about the state of global diplomacy. I disagree with the Government’s cosying up to Donald Trump, but if there is to be any value in those actions, surely the Foreign Secretary should use his influence to make President Donald Trump use his phone for talking instead of sending inflammatory tweets into what is a fragile and precarious situation.

Boris Johnson: I really must disagree powerfully with the hon. Lady’s assertion that somehow this crisis has been whipped up by the Americans, the President or the White House when, if we look at the history not just over the past year, but over the past 10 or 30 years, we will see that this has been a movement towards the acquisition of thermonuclear weapons by a rogue state. We have now come to a point where we have to use all the diplomatic and peaceful means at our disposal to freeze that nuclear programme and to ensure a peaceful solution.

Robert Courts: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain, with its close and established ties with the United States and its strengthened ties with Japan, is in a unique position to bring together regional players to achieve the sort of regional solution that we need in order to avoid the regional instability that none of us in this House wants to see?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was why the Prime Minister’s trip to Japan was so timely and why her interventions there were so warmly welcomed not just by our Japanese friends, but by the South Koreans and many others. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will confirm, the United Kingdom is committed to the security and stability of east Asia as much as it is to Europe.

Paul Flynn: The most likely start of a nuclear war will come by accident, by technical failure or by human error. The danger of that is greatly increased as world tension multiplies. Is it not true that, while there is no equivalence in this and we should pay credit to China for keeping the lid on paranoid regimes in North Korea for 60 years, the new element has been  an American President who has managed to inflame every frozen conflict that he has addressed? Should it not be right that we take a British diplomatic, experienced view of this, with cooler heads, rather than follow the example of the apprentice President?

Boris Johnson: The new element is the increasing desire of the North Korean regime illegally to test nuclear weapons and threaten its neighbours and those further afield, and the acquisition of what looks like an intercontinental ballistic missile with what could be a hydrogen bomb capability. That is the new element, which requires international co-ordination to defeat.

Robert Jenrick: North Korea’s regime is partly financed by money laundered through Chinese regional banks and companies. In the US, the Treasury Department has taken decisive action to cut off those organisations—even those that are Chinese—from the financial system, and prosecutions have been launched in the past few days. Will the UK Government do exactly the same to those organisations operating out of the City of London?

Boris Johnson: We are certainly in favour of ensuring that all the sanctions that are currently in place are fully applied. If it is necessary to take action in respect of the City of London, we certainly shall do so.

Caroline Lucas: As the Foreign Secretary is on the record as saying that all options are on the table, may I press him a little bit more tonight to confirm that he has taken off the table any kind of UK support for military action? Will he give Government support to efforts that are already beginning to happen—I am talking about a longer-term process towards a phased and comprehensive approach to a north-east Asian nuclear weapons-free zone, which has cross-party support in Japan and South Korea?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful for the opportunity to point out that that is an entirely hypothetical question. I am very impressed by the mood of moderation in the House today. Everybody really wants a peaceful diplomatic solution, and that is what we are working towards.

Alex Chalk: Is it not a reality that further sanctions are unlikely to persuade this depraved regime to give up its illegal nuclear programme, even though it is beggaring its people in the process? Has the time not come to press again for six-party talks to include the North Korean regime if necessary?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is very thoughtful on these matters. What we want is to freeze the North Korean nuclear programme, and diplomatic means are the best way forward.

Liz Twist: Sanctions imposed by the UN on North Korea, especially those of the past year, are the strongest yet. Can the Secretary of State tell us what steps the Government are taking to ensure that all those sanctions are fully implemented and, crucially, enforced by all UN member states?

Boris Johnson: We have raised that at the UN repeatedly over the past few weeks, as the hon. Lady would expect us to do.

Kevin Foster: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the focus on seeking a peaceful diplomatic solution. Will he reassure me that we have also made it clear to our allies in the region that if they were the subject of an unprovoked military attack by North Korea, they would not face it alone?

Boris Johnson: As my hon. Friend knows, we are doing everything we can to make sure that that appalling possibility does not take place. That is our aim. As he will also know, much of the region—Japan and South Korea—is protected by an American guarantee. The new element in this equation is that North America could now itself be the victim of an ICBM from North Korea. That is why the situation is now so grave, and why we must make sure that we terminate this programme where it is.

Jonathan Edwards: I was glad to see the emphasis on diplomacy in the Secretary of State’s statement today and to hear him say in media comments yesterday that there is no easy military solution. Considering that the North Korean regime above all craves security guarantees and normalised economic and diplomatic relations, does he agree that those are the key bargaining chips that might bring the regime back to the negotiating table with other partners to de-escalate this crisis?

Boris Johnson: I do. The hon. Gentleman has caught my sentiments exactly.

Alex Sobel: I do agree that this crisis has been created by the missile tests and thermonuclear test last week by the North Korean regime, which clearly is not acting like a rational nation state. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his approach and for using the UN Security Council to put pressure on China and to restart the six-nations talks. However, on Sunday, the President of the United States made a public statement on Twitter, which is his wont, saying:
“South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!”
Is that our approach? Are we saying that the approach of regional nations such as South Korea amounts to appeasement? The “one thing” he mentions is clearly military action. Are we pressing all the other options on the United States?

Boris Johnson: It is not so much that we are pressing all the options on the United States—though of course we are—but that those are the options that the United States itself massively prefers and wants to bring about.

Martin Docherty: Korea—I speak of it as a nation and not as two divided political states—is at a crossroads in its political, social and economic future. It is a future that may well impact on the very fabric of the People’s Republic of China, and China knows that only too well. I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary mention China in such friendly tones; it was extremely welcome. In playing its part in defending peace, I hope that the Government do so by asking some practicalities of the Government of the United States as well as of the People’s Republic of China. Do they recognise, for instance, that the Korean  nation and the world require the United States and China to work in partnership and use their leverage? Is it not the case that we require mutually assured restraint, as espoused by the sociologist Amitai Etzioni, to bring about a full and comprehensive peace in Korea?

Boris Johnson: I am delighted to hear Amitai Etzioni quoted on the subject of Korea. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus on the partnership and potential of the relationship between the US and China. They hold the key to the question between them, but, as I say, where there are differences it can be our task to try to help to bridge the gap, then unite the rest of the international community on a common position.

Exiting the EU: Devolved Administrations

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

Ian Blackford: I seek to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration: namely, the UK exiting the EU and the role of devolved Administrations.
With Parliament on the cusp of debating the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the House should take note that the UK Government have not held a Joint Ministerial Committee with the Governments of the devolved nations since 8 February this year. On 15 June, the Scottish and Welsh Governments wrote jointly to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union requesting a meeting of the JMC. This request has not been granted by the UK Government, which is in direct violation of the rules set out in the JMC concordat, memorandum of understanding and supplementary agreements. Any request for a meeting should be actioned within a month. It is completely unacceptable that the UK Government are ignoring the request from both the Welsh and Scottish Governments for a JMC meeting.
We know that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill touches on areas of devolved responsibility. We know that the UK Government are going to have to ask for legislative consent motions from the devolved Parliaments. In doing so, they are seemingly not prepared to respect the established procedures that should allow both dialogue and mutual respect between Westminster and the devolved Administrations.
Often in this place, we hear the phrase “taking back control”. It should not mean taking powers from the devolved Administrations, as is happening, and certainly not without appropriate mechanisms for resolution. There has to be co-operation with all the devolved Governments, and the JMC is the forum for that to take place. The House needs to debate why it is not happening before the Bill is debated.
Emasculation of the devolved Administrations by itself undermines our democracy and questions the constitutional rights of our devolved Administrations. The UK Government seem to be provoking the devolved Administrations when we should be seeking co-operation. A minority UK Government have to seek to build consensus—I would venture that that is what the public want—and not seek division with democratically elected devolved Governments.
It is important that the House has the opportunity to debate those matters before the Bill is introduced. This is a Government who function as a minority Government. We have a society where there are divisions over Europe, and the legislative measures we will be discussing have an impact on devolved competency. The House has to hold the UK Government to account for their actions in the devolved areas.

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has asked for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration: namely, the UK exiting the EU and the role of devolved Administrations. I have listened carefully to his application, but I am not persuaded  that this is a matter properly to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. The Standing Order states that I should not give the reasons for my decision to the House, but perhaps I may give a hint that the Standing Order requires me to have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House in time by other means. I will leave it at that.

POINT OF ORDER

Gareth Snell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your assistance regarding regulation 23(9) of the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013. The regulation provides for local authorities with concerns about decisions by clinical commissioning groups to refer those decisions to the Secretary of State for Health for consideration.
On 26 January and 11 January this year, Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Staffordshire County Council made a referral of decision by Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire CCGs to close community care beds across community hospitals in our area. On 11 April 2017, a letter from my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), the former Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, Baroness Golding and me was sent to the Secretary of State asking for an update on the matter, with a subsequent letter from me sent to him on 28 July. To date no one has received a response. The local authorities that made the referral almost eight and a half months ago have yet to receive any acknowledgement from the Secretary of State that the matter is under consideration. While the matter is not being dealt with by the Secretary of State, the decisions by the CCGs stand and community care beds are closing.
I seek your assistance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can compel the Secretary of State for Health to consider the referral that he has received from those two authorities and how future referrals from local authorities can be dealt with in a timely fashion under the regulations provided by the House that give power to the Secretary of State.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. I appreciate that it is an important matter of great concern to him and his constituents, but it is not a point of order. It is not for me to interpret the legal responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Health. However, the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in getting his concerns on the record. No doubt they have been heard by Ministers in the Chamber and will, I am sure, be relayed to the Department. If the hon. Gentleman does not receive a satisfactory response, I encourage him to seek the advice of the Table Office on the various avenues that he might use to pursue the matter.

BILLS PRESENTED

Rosie Winterton: As the House can see, a good many Bills will be presented today. [Interruption.] Now, now. To save time and to get on with the main business, I will accept private notice of the dates of Second Reading for Bills on the Order Paper where multiple Bills have been tabled by the same Member. Those dates will be minuted accordingly in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings.

Voter Registration Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Sir Greg Knight, Mr William Wragg, Eddie Hughes, Esther McVey,  Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to prohibit persons from being registered to vote in Parliamentary elections in more than one constituency; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November 2018, and to be printed (Bill 27).

Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Eddie Hughes, Esther McVey, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies, Justin Tomlinson and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to limit exit payments made by public sector organisations to employees; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 28).

Student Loans (Debt Interest) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Nigel Evans, Mr William Wragg, Esther McVey, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to limit the rate of interest chargeable on outstanding student loan debt; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November 2018, and to be printed (Bill 29).

Local Authorities (Removal of Council Tax Restrictions) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Eddie Hughes, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for the removal of restrictions on principal local authorities in England to set levels of council tax; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 December, and to be printed (Bill 30).

Healthcare (Local Accountability) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Sir Greg Knight, Eddie Hughes, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision about the accountability of clinical commissioning groups; to make provision about local referendums on NHS sustainability and transformation plans; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 31).

Human Rights and Responsibilities Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Eddie Hughes, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to require persons bringing claims or proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998 to satisfy a test of reasonableness and equity; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 December 2018, and to be printed (Bill 32).

Public Service Broadcasters (Privatisation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation and Channel 4; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 January 2019, and to be printed (Bill 33).

BBC Licence Fee (Civil Penalty) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Nigel Evans, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Eddie Hughes, Esther McVey, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March 2018, and to be printed (Bill 34).

Tax Rates and Duties (Review) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Esther McVey, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to require the Government to publish an annual review of the net yield to HM Treasury of tax rates and duties levied, including estimates of the impact on yield of changes to rates of those taxes and duties; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 December, and to be printed (Bill 35).

High Speed 2 Phase 1 (Reviews of Public Expenditure) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Esther McVey, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to require the carrying out and publication of reviews of the level of public expenditure in connection with the High Speed 2 rail line (Phase 1); to establish procedures in connection with changes in these levels; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019, and to be printed (Bill 36).

National Health Service (Co-Funding and Co-Payment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for co-funding and for the extension of co-payment for NHS services in England; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May 2018, and to be printed (Bill 37).

Value Added Tax Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to enable the maximum turnover threshold for exemption from the requirement to register for VAT to be raised; to make provision for the exemption of certain goods and services from liability to VAT; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 February 2019, and to be printed (Bill 38).

Principal Local Authorities (Grounds for Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr William Wragg, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to prohibit principal local authorities being abolished in the absence of the authority of its elected councillors and a local referendum; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 39).

Deregulation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Philip Davies, Sir Henry Bellingham and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for the reduction of burdens resulting from legislation for businesses or other organisations or for individuals; to make provision for the repeal or amendment of regulations; to make provision about the exercise of regulatory powers and functions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 March 2019, and to be printed (Bill 40).

Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Eddie Hughes, Philip Davies, Sir Henry Bellingham and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to create offences in respect of persons that have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July 2018, and to be printed (Bill 41).

Border Control Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Eddie Hughes, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision about the requirements for non-UK citizens seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom; to make provision about a process for the removal from the United Kingdom of non-UK citizens, in certain circumstances and on the basis of established criteria; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November 2018, and to be printed (Bill 42).

Foreign Nationals (Criminal Offender and Prisoner Removal) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Mr William Wragg, Eddie Hughes, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for the removal from the United Kingdom of foreign national criminal offenders and of prisoners who are citizens of European Union Member States; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 February 2019, and to be printed (Bill 43).

Free Trade (Education and Reporting) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to impose duties relating to the provision of public education  on free trade; to require regular reports from government on trade arrangements with other countries; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2019, and to be printed (Bill 44).

Import Tariff (Reduction) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for the reduction of tariffs on goods imported into the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May 2018, and to be printed (Bill 45).

Employment Opportunities Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to introduce more freedom, flexibility and opportunity for those seeking employment in the public and private sector; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July 2018, and to be printed (Bill 46).

International Development Assistance (Definition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision about the definition of international development assistance; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March 2018, and to be printed (Bill 47).

Schools Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to enable schools to select pupils on the basis of published criteria; to allow schools to determine maximum class sizes; to remove restrictions on the expansion of the number of pupils schools and on the creation of new schools; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May 2018, and to be printed (Bill 48).

Bat Habitats Regulation (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision to enhance the protection available for bat habitats in the non-built environment and to limit the protection for bat habitats in the built environment where the presence of bats has a significant adverse impact upon the users of buildings; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July 2018, and to be printed (Bill 49).

Green Belt (Protection) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr William Wragg, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to establish a national register of green  belt land in England; to restrict the ability of local authorities to de-designate green belt land; to make provision about future development of de-designated green belt land; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 50).

International Payments (Audit) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Eddie Hughes, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision to require cost-benefit analysis and independent audit before payments are made by the Government to a foreign country or international organisation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March 2018, and to be printed (Bill 51).

Local Authorities (Borrowing and Investment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision about the acquisition of land and property by local authorities in England outside their own local authority boundaries; to limit the power of local authorities to invest in commercial risk-taking enterprises; to limit public borrowing by local authorities for non-core activities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 December, and to be printed (Bill 52).

Benefits and Public Services (Restriction) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision to restrict the entitlement of non-UK citizens to publicly-funded benefits and services; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March 2018, and to be printed (Bill 53).

Public Services (Availability) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Esther McVey, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision about the availability of public services during weekday evenings, at weekends and on bank holidays; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May 2018, and to be printed (Bill 54).

Working Time (Regulations) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the expiration of the Working Time Regulations 1998; to provide for regulations governing working time; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 March 2019, and to be printed (Bill 55).

Local Roads (Investment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Eddie Hughes, Esther McVey, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision about the maintenance and repair of roads by local authorities in England; to make provision for prescribing the use of funds for this purpose; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 56).

Holiday Pay Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about holiday pay for employees; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 December 2018, and to be printed (Bill 57).

Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to amend the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to extend public access to certain documents that are commercially confidential and documents relating to NHS bodies in England; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 58).

Electronic Cigarettes (Regulation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the sale and use of electronic cigarettes; to exempt electronic cigarettes from UK law derived from the Tobacco Products Directive; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 59).

Electoral Commission (Duties) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Sir Greg Knight, Eddie Hughes, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to impose duties on the Electoral Commission to investigate allegations of electoral fraud and other breaches of electoral law and to act as the prosecuting authority for such offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 60).

Mobile Homes and Park Homes Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Martin Vickers and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to require the use of published criteria to determine whether mobile homes and park homes are liable for council tax or non-domestic rates; to make provision in relation to the residential status of such homes; to amend the Mobile Home Acts; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 61).

Sublet Property (Offences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make the breach of certain rules relating to sub-letting rented accommodation a criminal offence; to make provision for criminal sanctions in respect of unauthorised subletting; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 62).

Fruit and Vegetables (Classification) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for fruit and vegetables to be classified by flavour, condition and size for the purposes of sale in the UK; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 63).

Student Loans (Debt Discharge) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Nigel Evans, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision about the forgiveness or discharge of student loan debt in certain circumstances; to make provision about the treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy proceedings; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 64).

Stamp Duty Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for the reduction of stamp duty rates on residential property.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 65).

Armed Forces (Volunteer Reserve) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for the recruitment and retention of Volunteer Reserves for the Armed Forces; to make provision for the eligibility for deployment of such reserves; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 66).

Fishing (Access to Territorial Waters) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Sir Greg Knight, Martin Vickers, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to restrict the rights of vessels not registered in the United Kingdom to fish in territorial waters; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 67).

Speed Limits (England) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Sir Greg Knight, presented a Bill to prohibit permanent derogations from a 30 mile per hour speed limit in built-up areas in England; to make provision for the circumstances in which speed limits below 30 miles per hour may be introduced; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 68).

Judicial Appointments and Retirements (Age Limits Bill)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to repeal provisions for the compulsory retirement of holders of judicial office on the grounds of age; to remove upper age limits for appointment to judicial office; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 69).

Coastal Path (Definition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for the definition of a coastal path in England in respect of the coastal access duty under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 70).

Domestic Energy (Value Added Tax) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to reduce Value Added Tax on domestic energy bills; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 71).

Manufactured Goods (Trade) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Esther McVey, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to remove certain restrictions on the production and sale of goods manufactured in the United Kingdom for use in the United Kingdom, in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 72).

Criminal Fraud (Private Prosecutions) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Esther McVey, Philip Davies and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision about private prosecutions in cases of suspected criminal fraud in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 73).

International Development Assistance (Limit) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Esther McVey, Gordon Henderson, Ben Bradley, Philip Davies, Mr Christopher Chope and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to impose a limit on the level of international development assistance at an amount equal to the European Union average of equivalent expenditure; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October 2018, and to be printed (Bill 74).

Government Departments (Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Gordon Henderson, Philip Davies, Steve Double, Mr Christopher Chope and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for the abolition of the Department for International Development and the Government Equalities Office; to make provision for the abolition of the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales, Scotland Office and Northern Ireland Office; to establish a Department for the Nations of the United Kingdom in their place; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November 2018, and to be printed (Bill 75).

Prime Minister (Temporary Replacement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Dr Dan Poulter, Philip Davies, Henry Smith, Mr Christopher Chope and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for the carrying out of the functions of the Prime Minister in the event that a Prime Minister, or a person temporarily carrying out the functions of the Prime Minister, is incapacitated; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2019, and to be printed (Bill 76).

June Bank Holiday (Creation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr William Wragg, Philip Davies, Sir David Amess, Steve Double and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for a national public holiday on 23 June or the subsequent weekday when 23 June falls at a weekend; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June 2018, and to be printed (Bill 77).

Leader of the House of Commons (Election) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Esther McVey, Philip Davies, Henry Smith, Steve Double, Mr Christopher Chope and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to amend the House of Commons Administration Act 1978 to provide that the Prime Minister may only nominate as Leader of the House of Commons a Member of that House chosen following an election held amongst all Members of the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2019, and to be printed (Bill 78).

Prime Minister (Accountability to House of Commons Bill)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Philip Davies, Mr Christopher Chope and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to impose duties on the Prime Minister relating to accountability to the House of Commons; to require the Prime Minister to be available to answer questions in that House on at least two occasions during a sitting week except in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2019, and to be printed (Bill 79).

British Broadcasting Corporation (Oversight) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Esther McVey, Dr Dan Poulter, Philip Davies, Sir David Amess, Steve Double, Mr Christopher Chope, Jim Shannon and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to create an independent body to monitor broadcasting impartiality at the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2018, and to be printed (Bill 80).

Voter Registration (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Dr Dan Poulter, Mr William Wragg, Esther McVey, Gordon Henderson, Mike Penning, Philip Davies, Henry Smith, Sir David Amess, Steve Double, Mr Christopher Chope and Jim Shannon, presented a Bill to prohibit persons from being registered to vote in Parliamentary elections at more than one address; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 November, and to be printed (Bill 81).

Hospital (Parking Charges and Business Rates) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Esther McVey, Gordon Henderson, Mike Penning, Philip Davies, Henry Smith, Sir David Amess, Steve Double and Jim Shannon, presented a Bill to prohibit charging for car parking at NHS Hospitals for patients and visitors; to make provision for NHS Hospitals to be exempt from business rates; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2018, and to be printed (Bill 82).

Local Government Finance Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Gordon Henderson, Mr Jonathan Lord, Henry Smith, Steve Double, Mr Christopher Chope and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to provide for 100 per cent retention of locally collected business rates; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 83).

House of Commons Whips (Transparency) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to require the Government to publish details of meetings between the Government Whips  Office in the House of Commons and the corresponding offices of other political parties in the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 March 2019, and to be printed (Bill 84).

European Union (Return of Contributions) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Gordon Henderson, Philip Davies and Mr Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to require the Government to obtain, on withdrawal from the European Union, a payment from the European Union not less than 50 per cent of the United Kingdom’s net contributions to that institution; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 December 2018, and to be printed (Bill 85).

General Election (Leaders’ Debate) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Esther McVey and Mr Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to set up a commission to make arrangements for debates between leaders of political parties during a General Election; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2019, and to be printed (Bill 86).

Homeless People (Current Accounts) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr William Wragg, Esther McVey, Dr Dan Poulter, Philip Davies, Steve Double, Mr Christopher Chope, Ben Bradley, Jo Churchill and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to require banks to provide current accounts for homeless people seeking work; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2019, and to be printed (Bill 87).

Electoral Candidate (Age) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Esther McVey, Gordon Henderson, Mr Jonathan Lord, Steve Double and Mr Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to allow a person who is age 18 or older on the day of a parliamentary or local election to stand as a candidate; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 December 2018, and to be printed (Bill 88).

Parliamentary Allowances (Restriction) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Esther McVey, Gordon Henderson, Philip Davies, Sir David Amess, Steve Double and Mr Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to prohibit members of the House of Commons who do not take the oath from receiving parliamentary allowances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2019, and to be printed (Bill 89).

Child Safety (Cycle Helmets) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Gordon Henderson, Sir David Amess, Mr Christopher Chope, Jo Churchill and Jim Shannon, presented a Bill to require children under 16 to wear a safety helmet when riding a bicycle on a public highway; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2019, and to be printed (Bill 90).

Human Trafficking (Child Protection) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Esther McVey, Dr Dan Poulter, Mr Jonathan Lord, Philip Davies, Henry Smith, Mr Christopher Chope and Jo Churchill, presented a Bill to make provision for the creation of secure safe houses for children that have been subject to human trafficking; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2019, and to be printed (Bill 91).

Drone (Regulation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Esther McVey, Gordon Henderson, Mr Jonathan Lord, Philip Davies, Henry Smith, Steve Double, Mr Christopher Chope, Sir David Amess and Jim Shannon, presented a Bill to regulate the purchase and use of drones weighing 5 kilograms or more; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 February 2019, and to be printed (Bill 92).

Ovarian Cancer (Public Awareness) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Philip Davies, Sir David Amess, Mr Christopher Chope, Jim Shannon and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision about public awareness measures in respect of the symptoms of and screening for ovarian cancer; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November 2018, and to be printed (Bill 93).

Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Jo Churchill, Kit Malthouse, Jeremy Lefroy, Rebecca Pow, George Freeman, Maria Caulfield, Will Quince, Nick Thomas-Symonds, Dr Philippa Whitford, Jim Shannon and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to establish, and make provision about, the National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 94).

Pilot (Licensing) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Christopher Chope and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to create a pilot licensing system in line with International Civil Aviation Organization standards; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 March 2019, and to be printed (Bill 95).

Pensions (Review of Women’s Arrangements) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Philip Davies, Esther McVey, Gordon Henderson, Steve Double and Mr Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to establish a review of pension arrangements for women affected by changes made by the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 February 2019, and to be printed (Bill 96).

Isham Bypass Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to impose duties relating to the completion of the Isham Bypass by 31 December 2020; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 97).

North Northamptonshire (Urgent Care Facilities) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Tom Pursglove, presented a Bill to make provision about the restructuring of urgent care facilities in North Northamptonshire; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 98).

Northamptonshire Clinical Commissioning Groups (Merger) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Tom Pursglove, presented a Bill to require the merging of the Nene Valley and Corby Clinical Commissioning Groups; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 99).

Genocide Determination (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Fiona Bruce presented a Bill to provide for the High Court of England and Wales to make a preliminary finding on cases of alleged genocide; and for the subsequent referral of such findings to the International Criminal Court or a special tribunal.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 100).

School Holidays (Meals and Activities) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Frank Field, supported by Mr Graham Brady, Dr Philippa Whitford, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Heidi Allen, Nicky Morgan, Sir Oliver Letwin, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Sir Nicholas Soames, Dr Dan Poulter, Ruth Smeeth and Sir Henry Bellingham, presented a Bill to require local authorities to facilitate the delivery of programmes that provide free meals and activities for children during school holidays; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2018, and to be printed (Bill 101).

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE  (RELIEF FROM NON-DOMESTIC RATES) BILL

Considered in Committee
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]
Clause 1

Relief from local non-domestic rates: occupied hereditaments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.
That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.
New clause 1—Report on operation of the relief—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall, by 30 September 2018, lay a report before Parliament containing an assessment of the operation of the relief in the 2017-18 financial year.
(2) The report shall include an account of—
(a) the impact upon the level of local authority income raised through non-domestic rating,
(b) the level of investment likely to have been stimulated by the proposed relief, and the scope for extending the relief to other forms of investment,
(c) whether the duration of the relief is appropriate,
(d) the views of those subject to charge of non-domestic rates on the relief, and
(e) the efficacy of the existing mechanism for distribution of relief.”

Marcus Jones: The Government are committed to supporting full-fibre telecommunication infrastructure and the roll-out of 5G. This will deliver a step change in the speed, service quality and reliability of broadband and mobile services. Independent research suggests that increased broadband speed alone could add £17 billion to UK output by 2024, so this is a vital measure for the whole economy. The Bill will provide the powers we need to implement an important part of that strategy.
At the 2016 autumn statement, the Government announced 100% rate relief for new full-fibre infrastructure in England. The clauses in the Bill will allow us to deliver that relief with retrospective effect to 1 April 2017. We have already published draft regulations that illustrate how we will use these powers to implement the relief. The draft regulations have been prepared in consultation with telecoms experts in the Government, Ofcom and telecoms providers. Business rates and telecoms are technical fields so there is considerable scope for complexity where they meet. However, I am glad to say that through our work with the sector, we believe that we have found a clear approach to allow the valuation officer to identify, capture and quantify new fibre.

Ed Vaizey: I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Is my hon. Friend aware of some concerns in the telecoms sector that the tax relief could be gamed? People could switch off lit fibre and light dark fibre in order to take advantage of the tax relief.  Some have suggested that a better way of implementing may be simply to limit the quantum of business rates paid by telecoms companies. Will my hon. Friend comment on those concerns, which I have heard from a number of providers?

Marcus Jones: I understand the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend, and I have great respect for his considerable knowledge on the matter. I reassure him and the various bodies that hold concerns that the relief is not a measure to support the relighting of fibre that has been turned off. Indeed, it is to support the laying of new fibre in the ground. This technical matter is laid out in the draft regulations and explained in the accompanying consultation document published by my Department last week. Consultation will ensure that the proposal reaches the right audience in the telecoms sector. With business rates experts, we will ensure that the relief will work as planned. The consultation will also allow us to move quickly to implement the relief once the Bill has passed and ensure that support is available for new fibre.

Kit Malthouse: Even if this were a relief that applied to currently dark fibre that is lit, or to fibre that was lit, is unlit and is then lit again, if the premise of the scheme holds true, this is an investment. The idea is that this is meant to spur more economic activity. Therefore, more tax will be gained from corporation tax, pay-as-you-earn and other forms of business rates because people will have premises that become available for use and that are then much more commercial. Rents will rise, values will rise and all the rest of it. The Government do not need to be too chary about where the relief goes, because if they see the relief as an investment, not just some kind of freebie for the industry, it will benefit everyone, including the Government.

Marcus Jones: My hon. Friend is right that this is an investment in the infrastructure of the country. Indeed, it is a relief that is time-limited for five years. After that five-year period, that fibre will attract its own income into the business rates pool, whether on the local list or on the central list.

Ed Vaizey: I hope the Minister will forgive me for interrupting his eloquent speech, but I was spurred into action by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is a newly elected member of the Treasury Committee—I congratulate him—and who displays the forensic skill we will see in many hearings in months to come. It behoves me to clarify that it is possible under the current regulations for a telecoms provider simply to lay new fibre in existing ducts, turn it on and take advantage of the tax relief, even though there is already fibre in those ducts. That would be seen as gaming the system—taking advantage of the tax reliefs without building the new infrastructure my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has campaigned for so vigorously. That is simply the warning light that I put up, and it may be that my hon. Friend will drive future Treasury Committee hearings towards that subject.

Marcus Jones: By definition, full fibre is fibre that goes all the way from an exchange to the particular business or residential property that it individually serves. Therefore, by definition, even if an existing set of ducting was  used, the new fibre would be an expansion of the network, because it would serve a different property from the current fibre. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend is reassured.

Oliver Heald: As my hon. Friend will know, there are homes and businesses in the rural parts of North East Hertfordshire that are more than 1,000 metres from the nearest cabinet, so providing fibre straight to the door is the best solution. Will the proposed change mean that more work can be done on that more quickly?

Marcus Jones: My right hon. and learned Friend hits the nail on the head. The whole design of this legislation and this tax relief is intended to encourage providers—not just the large ones, but the smaller ones, which these proposals are very good for—to bring that new, direct fibre cable to homes and businesses.

Kit Malthouse: Will the Minister give way?

Marcus Jones: I will just make some progress first, if I may.
The Bill contains six clauses. Clauses 1 to 3 provide the powers for the relief, and clauses 4 to 6 cover consequential and financial matters. Business rates are payable on three classes of properties: first, occupied properties shown on the local rating lists held by local authorities; secondly, unoccupied properties shown on local rating lists; and, thirdly, properties on the central list, which is held by my Department.
The main business rates legislation in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 contains separate provisions for charging rates on those three classes. Clauses 1 to 3 provide powers to allow relief in those three classes. Clause 1 allows for relief for occupied hereditaments shown on local ratings lists. Clause 2 allows for relief for unoccupied hereditaments shown on local ratings lists. Clause 3 allows for relief for hereditaments on the central list.
Clauses 1 to 3 have similar structures and serve the same purpose. First, the powers in the clauses will allow the Secretary of State to set conditions as to when the relief will apply. This is not a wide-ranging power covering all properties. The power can be used only for telecommunication hereditaments. Through these powers we will target the relief on operators of telecoms networks who deploy new fibre on their networks. That will incentivise and reward those operators who invest in the fibre network.

Edward Argar: In that context, could the Minister clarify something for me? The Bill says the relief will apply to hereditaments used “wholly or mainly” for the purpose of telecommunications. Is a standardised definition of “mainly” extant in legislation, or could he enlarge on what it would be defined as?

Marcus Jones: I think it would be best for me to reassure my hon. Friend that the sole purpose of this legislation is to cover telecommunication hereditaments. As he has heard, the aim is for the Government to provide a targeted, five-year rate relief to incentivise the laying of new fibre cable, which will hopefully serve and support his constituents in Leicestershire.

Julian Knight: I thank the Minister for giving way—he is being most generous in allowing interventions. In 2015 and last year, Solihull enjoyed a higher growth rate than China, but it is still one of the poorest areas for broadband provision, particularly business provision. The Minister can imagine what more could be achieved if we had better broadband, so the Bill is very welcome, as is the £60 million in targeted tax relief. Does he agree that the relief will not only boost Solihull’s economy but key in to the midlands engine, which is absolutely at the heart of UK growth and productivity?

Marcus Jones: My hon. Friend is a keen advocate and supporter of the businesses of Solihull. My understanding is that, by the end of the current roll-out period, 91% of properties will have been reached by superfast broadband. However, the Bill will incentivise providers to roll out more direct fibre services to all parts of the country. Hopefully, businesses and individuals in Solihull will also benefit from the provisions in the Bill.
Through these powers, we will target the relief on operators of telecoms networks who deploy—I have reiterated this point a number of times for the sake of clarity—new fibre on their networks. The proposals will incentivise and reward operators who invest in the fibre network.
These concepts have not been defined before for business rates. The powers in the clauses will therefore allow us to develop definitions with experts in the telecoms and business rates sectors. By taking this approach, we can ensure that we accurately capture in the relief only those parts of the telecoms network that comprise new fibre, which has been a significant concern of right hon. and hon. Members.

Richard Graham: The Minister knows that I am as keen as he is to make sure that all the blackspots in our urban constituencies are broadband-enabled as soon as possible. For some time, my concern has been that if new developments do not get fibre connections, there will be a continuing gap, and that every time Ministers stand up and say they will get 95% or 100% coverage, there will be new places without coverage. I am pleased that the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), wrote to me saying that Openreach will “provide FTTP”—fibre to the premises—
“to all new developments with more than 30 plots for free.”
That is great news, and it means that Ministers do not have to consider the option I was recommending of enabling local councils to make it mandatory for new developments to have fibre connections. However, will the Minister say something about developments with under 30 houses, because part of the regeneration of all cities is getting small plots redeveloped with housing, and that may involve developments of fewer than 30 homes?

Marcus Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. He is absolutely right that it is extremely important that new housing developments serve well the people who purchase the properties in relation to superfast broadband. He is right that it is a requirement for developments of under 30 dwellings to have a broadband connection and for developments of over 30 properties to have a superfast  broadband connection. In bringing forward those requirements, which started this January, the Government had to make a very challenging decision in getting the balance right between making sure that people are properly served with the latest technology and that we build the homes required to deal with the housing shortage in our country.

Ed Vaizey: I am very grateful to hear my hon. Friend talk about these issues. In my constituency, the developer Linden Homes built a housing development with houses selling for hundreds of thousands of pounds, and for the mere price of £6,000 to deliver broadband, refused to stump up that money. It is this kind of behaviour by developers that brings them into disrepute. I congratulate the Government on making great progress, because no new home should be built without superfast broadband.

Marcus Jones: My right hon. Friend is quite right. Developers who are not necessarily compelled to provide superfast broadband should think to themselves how the installation of superfast broadband could become a selling point for the property. The provision of superfast broadband is becoming more and more important, particularly as more and more people work from home.

Kit Malthouse: I acknowledge that the Government made huge progress in changing the building regulations so that this becomes mandatory for developments of over 30 houses. However, does it not strike the Minister as peculiar, in this century, that building regulations require the provision of electricity, water and drainage to every house, no matter the size of the development, but not, now, this vital piece of infrastructure that is becoming mandatory for modern living?

Marcus Jones: Even in developments of under 30, developers are required to provide a broadband connection for the people who are going to be occupying those properties. It is the developments of over 30 that require fibre broadband to be connected. While my hon. Friend does not seem happy with the premise on which that is based, the rationale behind it is based on the viability of new developments. Quite often, the smaller developments are more difficult for developers to find viable. Therefore, rather than prevent those developments from taking place by overburdening developers with regulations, a balance was struck.

Amanda Milling: Since speaking on Second Reading about connectivity to new homes, another case arrived in my inbox last week. I cannot go through it in an intervention, but needless to say it involves BT Openreach and the developer, with lots of emails to and from the constituent. I am sure that I will be writing to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital about it over the next few weeks.

Marcus Jones: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about this issue.
As I have said, through our work with the sector and the Valuation Office Agency, we believe that we have found a clear way to capture the concept of new fibre. We have set this out in our draft regulations and the consultation document that we published last week. However, this is a technical and fast-moving sector, so we will keep the operation of the relief under review to  ensure that it is working as planned and that the regulations keep pace with the continuing technical advances and changes in the industry. Accordingly, it will remain important that we have the powers available to amend the operation of the relief scheme over time. The powers in the clauses will also allow the Secretary of State to determine the level of relief to be awarded. As I have said, the Government intend to allow telecoms operators 100% relief, but only for new fibre. That new fibre will of course form part of existing telecom networks with existing ratings assessments.
Through the operation of this scheme, we intend to ensure that the relief is awarded only in respect of new fibre and not existing fibre. To achieve this, the powers in the clauses will allow us to set, by a formula contained in regulations, the correct level of relief for each property, reflecting the amount of their network that qualifies for the relief. This will be based on a certificate of the amount of rateable value that it appears to the valuation officer is attributable to the new fibre. The consultation document we published last week explains how, when taken together, the formula in the Bill and the formula in the draft regulations will deliver the correct level of relief for a property.
As I have said, these provisions are mirrored in the first three clauses of the Bill. Sometimes the letters in the formula differ, but that is merely to conform to existing lettering in the sections into which the formula will be introduced. Hon. Members will have noticed that clause 1 includes a table referring to different subsections. In theory, there will be instances where a property could be eligible for the new fibre relief but also for another such as charitable relief, although we believe this to be extremely unlikely. However, for completeness, the table in clause 1 makes it clear which relief should apply. No such conflict can arise for unoccupied properties or properties on the central list, so the table appears only in clause 1. The rules we have adopted here are consistent with the existing hierarchy of reliefs in the business rates system. Charity relief will apply above all others, and then reliefs such as small business rate relief. The relief for new fibre will apply only where no other relief applies.
Clause 4 gives effect to the schedule to the Bill. As I have described, the Bill makes a number of amendments to different sections of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Most of the amendments in the schedule are to that Act, and are necessary merely to ensure that those provisions continue to make sense and operate as intended. We are also in the schedule making consequential changes to the Business Rate Supplements Act 2009. Ratepayers entitled to mandatory reliefs in the main business rates system are also entitled to the same relief against the business rate supplement currently applied to larger properties in London. The Bill ensures that that continues to apply for the new fibre relief through these consequential amendments.
Clause 4 also includes the normal power to make regulations for other consequential provisions. We intend to use these powers to make consequential changes to the regulations that govern the transitional relief scheme. This will ensure that the relief is also available for those ratepayers who are either receiving transitional relief or whose reductions from the revaluation are being capped to fund the transitional relief.
Clause 5 provides the normal authority from Parliament that is necessary when making provisions that create a charge on public funds.
Clause 6 provides that the Bill applies to England and Wales. Business rates policy is devolved, so it will be for the Welsh Government to consider whether to introduce a similar relief. The Welsh Assembly Government have asked for the powers in this Bill to apply to Wales, although it will of course be a matter for Welsh Ministers to exercise those powers in relation to Wales. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, business rates legislation is made in their own Parliaments, so again it will be a matter for them whether to proceed with this measure. However, under the Barnett formula, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will receive their share of the funding of the relief. As we have discussed, the relief for new fibre will apply from 1 April 2017, so clause 6 also provides that the amendments and powers in the Bill can take effect retrospectively for the financial year commencing 1 April 2017.

Jim McMahon: We have just had a run-through of what the Bill contains, and by and large we welcome it. It is one of the remnants of the Local Government Finance Bill, which fell when the general election was called, and which contained things that industry and local government leaders wanted to see introduced. This could well be the first of several proposals, and I would welcome a conversation about that.
If our country is to have the type of economy that we want, a concerted effort must be made to deliver high-speed broadband to each and every community. The Bill represents an important step towards securing better connectivity and access to high-speed broadband across the country. If we fail to install the infrastructure our country needs, we will fail to realise our full potential, and communities who already feel geographically isolated will feel digitally isolated as well.
Big data providers such as BT and Virgin will be the initial beneficiaries of the relief—through big programmes such as Virgin Media’s Project Lightning and BT’s Openreach subsidiary—but, in the longer term, it is expected and hoped that small providers will also benefit when they lay new fibre in the ground. We need more detail about how the scheme will go beyond the big players and get down to smaller providers, particularly those that are really making an effort to reach out in rural areas to get to places that are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to broadband connectivity. There is no detail on that, and it would be good to see some.
The ill-fated Local Government Finance Bill would have introduced a number of changes. Some of them caused concern; we were concerned about how the full retention of business rates would eventually be financed, and about how the loss of certain grant funding—the public health grant and the early intervention grant—would eventually settle when a scheme had to be developed for the whole country. But, equally, local government and industry have called for the Government to make sure that the legislation and the funding of public services catch up with changing demand and the changing way in which public services are delivered. We are keen to  see more detail, and perhaps even a schedule of legislation to implement measures contained in the Local Government Finance Bill that might still have a chance of being introduced.
We broadly welcome the Bill, and we sincerely hope that it will lead to a material change in the pace and the coverage of high-speed broadband. The Opposition have tabled a new clause, which is designed to be positive. It is about contributing to the debate and looking to see where we can improve the legislation. It is not intended to frustrate or delay the Bill, or to take away anything from its spirit; the new clause is intended to add to that, and I hope that the Government will see the benefit of it.
We have heard today a concern about how the big players might seek to manipulate the rules by, for example, turning from one type of cable to another. We have heard concerns about how some new housing developments might not see the full benefit. Under the current rules, in a new development of 29 properties it will not be mandatory to provide this cabling, but in a new development of 30 or 31 properties it will be. My question is: would it have been more appropriate to make the £60 million available to smaller developers to fund the connection at that end, rather than using it to provide a business rate discount at the other end?
The new clause is needed because it would allow the Government to assess, within a 12-month period, whether the £60 million is delivering the type of roll-out and coverage that they intended. If it is not, the 12-month review would allow those changes to be made, based on the information gathered over that period. I believe that a good Government should do that as a matter of course, and I am sure that the Government will say that that is exactly what they intend to do. If that is the case, why not receive our new clause in that spirit and incorporate it in the Bill?
It is important that the big players—Virgin Media and BT Openreach—understand that the Government have not just written a cheque for £60 million, which they are happy to write off if the scheme does not work. It is a deal, and the money is being made available because the Government are determined to see broadband rolled out. There is an expectation that it will be rolled out, and if it is not, the Government should have the facility—the mechanism—to change the scheme if it is being abused. By adopting this new clause the Government would send a message to the big providers that Government are watching to make sure that they deliver what is required, and that there will be a review in 12 months so that if the relief is not working the Government can change the legislation. I would welcome the Minister’s views on our new clause.

Marcus Jones: Before I talk about the new clause, I would like to make a few observations about the hon. Gentleman’s opening comments. He mentioned the Local Government Finance Bill, which eventually fell when the general election was called. I spent many happy hours with him in that Bill Committee, where we debated the merits of allowing local areas to keep more of the taxes they raise locally. I reassure him that, as per our manifesto in the last general election, we are still absolutely committed to allowing local areas to keep more of the taxes that they raise locally. I expect that we will work over the coming months with the local government sector to discuss how we can take that aim forward.
On the point that the hon. Gentleman made about operators gaming the system by, for example, purporting to lay new fibre cable but simply relighting existing fibre cable that is already in the ground, I reiterate that the relief is all about the physical laying of new fibre in the ground. We believe that the definitions in the regulations provide a clear way of capturing what constitutes new fibre, so we consider that we will not be providing business rate relief when new fibre is not being installed and people are merely relighting existing fibre that is already in the ground.
I am grateful to the Opposition for tabling the new clause and giving us the opportunity to discuss at greater length the operation of the relief. Although, as I will explain, we cannot agree to the new clause, I hope that I can provide some detail and assurances on the operation of the relief. It is important to recognise that investment in fibre is a long-term commitment. To support and incentivise that commitment, the relief for new fibre will apply for a five-year period between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2022. That was the commitment given by the Chancellor in the autumn statement of 2016, and that commitment will be met through the Bill and the draft regulations that we published last week. This is part of a wider package of measures worth £1.1 billion that we announced at the autumn statement to support the market development of digital networks underpinned by full fibre, to ensure that we have the world-class digital infrastructure that we need. This includes £200 million to support local bodies in the roll-out of full fibre networks in their area, and in July 2017 we launched a £400 million investment fund providing finance for network providers to match their fibre investments. Alongside the legislative changes we brought forward in the Digital Economy Act 2017, such as changes to the system that governs access to land and the powers for universal broadband, we are therefore creating the right environment for investment. This measure is a crucial part of that: it is crucial that we provide the necessary support and the environment to allow this investment to happen, and that is what the Bill will do.
Although I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, I do not think it would be supportive of the overall measure to require the Government, as the new clause would do, to review the operation of the relief only one year into the five-year period. This would create significant uncertainty in the sector about the future of the relief, especially as the new clause specifically questions whether a five-year scheme is appropriate. That could in itself damage the success of the scheme and jeopardise the returns we expect for both businesses and households.
As I have said, we cannot agree to the new clause. However, the Government do of course keep all taxes and reliefs under review, and that will include the tax relief for new fibre. We will continue to track the operation of the scheme, and where we believe it can be improved, we will take action. The Bill will allow us to do that. It will also allow the Chancellor in the lead-up to the conclusion of the scheme in 2022 to consider its success and whether it should be reviewed or repeated for future years.
The Bill allows for future relief schemes within the boundaries of telecommunication infrastructure, and allows for different levels of relief and for different  technologies within those boundaries, but, as with all taxes, that is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of the Budget process. However, I can give some details of where we will meet some of the aspects of the new clause from existing legislation and practice.
Under the existing local government finance system, local authorities are required to submit to my Department non-domestic rating returns containing information about the business rates income and relief in their area. These are provided before the start of the year as estimates, and after the end of the year as final out-turns. This information is published in full on my Department’s website. I can assure the House that these returns will be amended to include separate information about the level of new fibre relief, so this information will be available for each local authority in England. We expect the first returns to include this information to be the out-turn data for 2017-18, which are expected to be published in the autumn of 2018.
At earlier stages in the progress of the Bill, I gave the House the assurance that we will compensate local government for the cost of its share of the relief. We restated that commitment in the consultation document that we published last week, and I give the same assurance again today. The relief that will be awarded on the central rating list held by my Department is not included in the published return provided by local government, but I can confirm that we will also publish the value of the new fibre relief in respect of the central rating list.
I also assure the House that we take very seriously the challenge of developing a suitable mechanism to deliver relief to new fibre, and that we are listening to the views of the sector. We have been working with Ofcom, the valuation office and the sector to ensure we have the correct mechanism. Last week, we published a consultation document, as I have said, and draft regulations illustrating how this will work. We will have further dialogue with those stakeholders, collect views as part of the consultation and publish a summary of responses to that exercise. In view of the assurances I have given, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.

Eleanor Laing: As indicated on the Order Paper, Mr Speaker has certified that clauses 1, 2 and 5 relate exclusively to England and Wales, and are within devolved legislative competence. As the Bill has not been amended in Committee, there is no change to that certification.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is required for the Bill to proceed. I shall now suspend the House for about two minutes while the Government table the appropriate consent motion, copies of which will be available shortly in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—

Eleanor Laing: The appropriate consent motion has been tabled. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?

Stuart Andrew: indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Mrs Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

Eleanor Laing: I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill:
Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83J as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 1, 2 and 5 of the Bill (Bill 3).—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

Eleanor Laing: I am pausing, lest anyone wishes to intervene at this moment.

Pete Wishart: Come on!

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman must not tell the Chair to come on. I am anticipating some great speeches. I have stopped anticipating such great speeches.
Question put and agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading

Matthew Hancock: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is part of a wide-ranging strategy to deliver world-class connectivity for our country. That, in turn, is part of our work and commitment to build a country that works for everyone and is fit for a modern age. Whether it is basic broadband over copper, world-class connectivity over fibre or continuous coverage through the air, it is part of what we could call a full-spectrum strategy.
The Bill provides vital support for the vision of full-fibre connectivity. Growing the fibre network beneath our streets and along our roads and railways is like growing a tree. The trunk links our great cities and connects Britain to the world, and we are growing the great boughs and branches to power ever wider mobile signal and reach every community. We are increasingly growing out fibre not just in the trunk or the boughs but in the multitude of small branches and twigs. It is increasingly going to people’s houses and to each business, and to all the public services of the land. The fibre network needs nourishment—it is as yet a sapling,  and as increasing demands are put on it, it will be under greater strain, so we must ensure that it is strong enough to deliver.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the Bill, including those who gave it full support on Second Reading and highlighted the contribution that it would make to furthering our ambitions to deliver world-class digital infrastructure. They were absolutely right to make that point. I am grateful to the Clerks of the House, the Bill team in the Department for Communities and Local Government and my brilliant team in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I am also grateful to our partners in the telecoms industry, with whom we have worked on getting the Bill right. I look forward to their responses to the technical implementation consultation published last week. I would very much like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), for steering the Bill through the House. The debates in Committee were fruitful, with the degree of support for the Bill being evident and strong.
The Bill will provide 100% business rates relief for five years for new fibre installed after April 2017. To get the details right, we will of course listen carefully to the responses to the consultation on the regulations—it is not on the policy or who the relief should apply to but on making sure that the technical details operate effectively. Especially given the Bill’s smooth passage through the House, we hope that it will be in force very soon to incentivise the deployment of more fibre and support our efforts to get world-class digital infrastructure.
To build on that, we want to create an attractive environment for the private sector to provide fibre. We are already seeing significant investment by operators across the country, including the new and growing altnets such as CityFibre, Gigaclear and Hyperoptic as well as Openreach and Virgin Media. That is supported by the Independent Networks Cooperative Association and others. I commend all of them for their work in the national interest. Business rates relief for new fibre will reduce the costs of deployment for those operators and incentivise the market to deliver where it otherwise may not have done. It is all part of ensuring that we can deliver the infrastructure that this country needs.
As I said, that is part of a broader plan. In July, we announced a £400 million investment fund to provide finance for network providers by matching their fibre investments. Over the summer we announced details of our universal service obligation so that every household will get decent broadband by 2020, and we recently announced further details of £200 million of support for getting full fibre to local bodies, schools, hospitals and other public services to help them deliver their services more effectively and ensure that the branches of fibre are rolled out more broadly. We continue to extend superfast broadband coverage over the copper network. Over 93% of UK premises have been covered to date and we are on target to reach 95% by the end of the year. Mobile coverage is on track to reach 90% of the landmass by the end of the year and we want to see 95% coverage in future.
The Bill is proof of our commitment to connectivity and our determination to deliver digital infrastructure that the country deserves. It has wide support, it has been considered in detail and it will help us build a modern Britain. I commend it to the House.

Jim McMahon: I share the vote of thanks to the range of people who have assisted the Bill. A great deal of work went on in the background to ensure the support of Members and the passage of the Bill. I would like to thank the Public Bill Office for the support it gave to the Opposition during the Committee stage, which was a great help.
The Opposition welcomes this infrastructure, which aims to improve our connectivity. We know that improved connectivity is important for economic growth, more jobs and improved links between business hubs and individuals alike. One slight regret, which is a major regret for the people affected, is that nothing in the Bill addresses the divide between urban areas and our rural communities. With 95% of people connected, it is a bitter pill for the 5% who live in areas that are not connected. People in those areas do not want warm words about the amounts of money being given away, but a plan in place to say when high-speed will reach them. Self-employment is on the rise, so access to decent IT in rural communities is essential. It is not in the Bill, but I urge the Government to give more detail on what they are going to do to encourage that roll-out, either in terms of allocation or through the soft relationship they are developing with providers.
The Labour party is committed to focusing on improvements to connectivity and infrastructure in rural communities, many of which feel they have been taken for granted by the Government. They have suffered chronic underinvestment for far too long. We know there are different demands, different drivers and different pressures on our communities, but the decisions we make today should not just about catching up with infrastructure developed five or 10 years ago; it ought to be about preparing the country for the next 10, 20 or 30 years ahead and for the next century. Many communities do not feel that they are a part of such consideration.
The Prime Minister previously called for co-operation across political parties. Over the summer, I reflected on 18 months of being an MP, after previously being a councillor and council leader for 13 years. To make a council and a place work, people need a common vision of what an area can be and they need to know what part they can play in taking it forward. I do not see that taking place nationally. It seems as though party politics is far more important than the people we all, collectively, represent. Getting one up on the Opposition or the Member sat across the Benches seems to be worth more than delivering investment on the ground for the very diverse communities we represent.
I should say that that is not my personal style at all. I am always more than happy to work across political parties if it means, ultimately, that we have better government for all the communities we represent. That is an offer. I do not intend to the Government’s job for them—I am not a taxi for hire in that sense—but I am keen to ensure that the voice of industry, local government and our many diverse communities really feature in policy as it comes through.
There is one area that we need to address. This is not party political, although I do have a view about what the Local Government Finance Bill included and did not include in terms of some of the safety nets and safeguards required. Our local councils cannot continue with their current funding settlement. We know that demand for adult social care is outstripping the money that they have, we know that they are stripping away frontline services just to keep their heads above water, and we know that that is just not sustainable. People are being expected to pay more and more council tax for what they perceive to be fewer and fewer of the services on which they rely, and which they consider to be vital and the foundation of their communities. Surely, if we believe in a decent country in which people can get on and public service is the foundation stone, we must not stand by and watch those people fall over.
This is, in effect, a plea. We have seen the presentation of one element of the Local Government Finance Bill; let us now see the presentation of a scheduled series of Bills that will really address chronic underfunding and the short-term nature of local government finance.

Robert Courts: It is a great pleasure to speak in a debate that is, as we all know, enormously important. I spoke in detail about the effect of poor broadband in my constituency on Second Reading, but I now want to make two brief points about events which occurred during the recess and which illustrate precisely what I have spoken about in the House on so many occasions.
Kernahan Service is a garage on one of the major industrial estates in Witney. It is an excellent local family-run company which has serviced vehicles throughout west Oxfordshire for many years. When I visited the garage, the people there wanted not just to explain to me how the business worked, but to demonstrate to me the difficulty caused by the poor broadband that was  available to them. Nowadays, as we know, when vans and other vehicles go into a garage, they are plugged into a computer which then connects to a server, and that provides the diagnostic information. I have seen for myself the waiting and the waiting and the waiting in that garage: I have seen those people waiting to find out from the Ford servers what the difficulties are with a particular vehicle. Moreover, I have witnessed with my own eyes the managing director waiting and waiting and waiting for the results of a search for information that is simply on a Google website. That makes very clear the problems experienced by businesses throughout west Oxfordshire, although it is not a particularly rural problem; it is being experienced in Witney and on one of the most important industrial estates there.
Then there is the domestic side. Isabelle Jackson, a 15-year-old constituent who lives in Kiddington, a small village just outside Woodstock, wrote asking me to raise this issue, and I now gladly do so. I am grateful to her for writing, because she has drawn attention to problems that are experienced by many young people.
Isabelle will take her GCSEs in the current academic year, and is required to do her homework online. She is required to do research and to use sites such as BBC Bitesize and MyMaths, which, as I am sure those with children of the relevant age will know, are very important. The broadband in her village runs at 0.9 megabits per second, so it is simply impossible for her to do her homework. It cannot be right that, simply because Isabelle and many like her live in rural areas, they are being disadvantaged in the course of their education, but that is exactly what we are seeing.
It is for those reasons—the effect on business and the effect on the domestic instruction of young people in particular—that I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill and the incentives that it gives operators to provide the investment that will ensure that we have high-speed internet in rural and, indeed, urban areas throughout west Oxfordshire.

INCONTINENCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stuart Andrew.)

Madeleine Moon: Incontinence is not an issue that is often discussed in the Chamber. Society sees the condition as a taboo, which is hidden from public view while sufferers cope in private. However, an estimated 14 million people in all age groups will, at some point in their lives, experience a problem with bladder dysfunction. A further 6.5 million will have bowel dysfunction.
It is generally assumed that incontinence is a condition that affects older people, but that is only half the story. The National Childbirth Trust estimates that almost half of all women experience urinary incontinence after childbirth; there are around 700,000 births a year, so as many as 350,000 women could face this problem. NHS figures suggest as many as 900,000 children and young people experience some form of problem.
More than 300,000 people are diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s, otherwise known as inflammatory bowel disease, and the most common age for diagnosis is between 18 and 30. Those conditions affect the digestive system to different degrees, but one in 10 people will experience regular incontinence. A 2012 survey by Crohn’s and Colitis UK found that 61% of people had not sought medical advice for the incontinence. Like all other conditions that have associated problems with incontinence, that leads to social isolation. Crohn’s and Colitis UK surveyed 1,000 young people on their experience, and 75% said that their condition made socialising impossible because of always needing to know of the proximity to a toilet. On a very simple level, given how many local authorities are closing access to public toilets, is it not time that we looked at alternatives? It is surely not beyond our wit in this House to look at issues such as rate relief, so that hotels, restaurants, pubs and cafes provide access to their toilets for those who urgently need to have that.

Melanie Onn: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that businesses with a high footfall could do an awful lot more to support their customers’ needs in respect of incontinence issues, and consider additional aids such as the Crohn’s and Colitis UK “Can’t Wait” card—a facility to enable individuals who suffer from incontinence issues to access the toilet facilities of businesses that would not ordinarily allow people to use them, but which support their customers as and when they might need it, to avoid any emergency situations?

Madeleine Moon: I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this area. That most certainly would help, and it is so simple; it is not a huge thing to do. Another example is simply having a shelf in toilets where someone with a colostomy or ileostomy can place the clean bag, so it is readily available while they remove the full bag. That would make things so much easier and healthier, by ensuring there is no cross-infection. Instead, people often have to scrabble on dirty toilet floors, trying to access what they need.
All the figures I have to hand today are estimates—as one patient group pointed out to me, the collection of statistics in this field is patchy at best, and putting a true figure on the scale of the problem is very difficult—but we will not tackle taboos until we start talking about them: we must destigmatise the subject so that no one faces humiliation if they admit to a problem. We need to bring this issue out into the open once and for all, so that people no longer suffer in silence and we can reduce the long-term health implications and additional costs for the NHS.
An analysis of calls to the Bladder and Bowel Foundation’s helpline in 2015 suggested that half the people with a continence problem had never spoken to a healthcare professional. Another study found that only one in three families seek help for children and young people with a continence problem. Imagine the long-term impact on a child’s health of having to try to manage such a problem at school, with all the stigma of being the smelly kid and all the fear of having an accident during a lesson.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this subject forward; it needs to be aired and she is doing that very well today. I thank her for that. Does she agree that young people suffering from ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease and other inflammatory bowel diseases need more help and support to deal with the lifestyle changes that these illnesses can bring? The latest statistics show that 75% of those young people say that they cannot have an active social life because of their condition, and I believe that restaurants, shops and councils have a responsibility to do more to help them to lead as normal a life as possible.

Madeleine Moon: I would ask every Member to consider the impact on their life of suddenly having a desperate, urgent need to access a toilet while at work or walking down the street, and there not being one available. Of course we must do more; no one can assume that incontinence is not coming their way or coming to a member of their family. As a society, we have to take responsibility for ensuring that people can access toilet facilities wherever they are and whenever they need them.

David Drew: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. She will be aware of ERIC—Education and Resources for Improving Childhood Continence—which has campaigned for many years for better availability of continence pads. These are still charged for at very high rates. If every school were to provide continence pads, a lot of children would have a much better experience at school.

Madeleine Moon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In particular, we should look at the need for teachers to understand the issue of incontinence. They need to understand that a child who constantly puts their hand up and says that they need to go to the toilet is not trying to get out of the lesson, and that it is perhaps an indication of a deep-seated problem that needs to be tackled. There is certainly a need to educate and build awareness of continence problems in schools. This relates to the little ones coming into the reception class—some of whom, increasingly and shockingly, have not been potty-trained and not learned to control their bowels  and bladder—and as the problem continues throughout the school. Schools need to step in and ensure that parents and children have access to the help and advice that they need.
People should have the confidence to talk about the problem to GPs and to seek an early diagnosis and intervention. People should not have to assume that it is something they have to live with. It is estimated that people manage the problem themselves for an average of five years before seeking help. We also need to highlight the detrimental impact that incontinence can have on an individual, and the fact that existing policy responses exacerbate the situation. This is a quality-of-life issue. It affects sleep and mental wellbeing, and it can cause isolation. For a child, it can have a long-term impact on their self-esteem and on family relationships, and it often makes them vulnerable to bullying.
Access to toilets can become a determining factor in every journey and activity away from the home. The condition can also lead to more complex health problems, which are inevitably more expensive to treat, and some people even choose residential care so that they can have management of their problem. One specialist in the field summed the situation up by saying:
“The reality is that bladder and bowel continence needs can affect anyone at any age. It can reduce a person’s enjoyment of life, ability to live an independent life, reduce education and work opportunities and lead to further medical complications.”
Patient surveys have highlighted the limitations imposed on people’s lives by their conditions. For sufferers who responded to a survey, those restrictions and sleep deprivation were the worst aspects, with 93% saying that it had affected their mood, 63% saying that it had affected their ability to work, and 39% saying that it had forced them to take time off work. Frustratingly, there are solutions for many, but people all too frequently struggle to cope on their own, using incontinence products available in local chemists rather than seeking the help that could be available from the NHS.

Rosie Cooper: It is really important to note that people who rely on getting pads and looking after themselves are not getting the best service, and doctors and nurses are sadly not receiving training in this most important area. Shockingly, the pre-registration nurse curriculum does not include training for bladder or bowel incontinence, so it is all too easy not to address the real problem. We need that experience to help people; we should not just pad them up. People can be helped with exercise, for example, and there are many interventions that could help instead of them being told simply, “Go and buy a pad.”

Madeleine Moon: I commend my hon. Friend’s work for the all-party parliamentary group on continence care, which does invaluable work in this area.
I am going to jump to another section of my speech. It is shocking how many people go into hospital with no continence problems but may be incontinent or doubly incontinent and have major problems by the time they leave. It is far too easy for nurses and doctors to see the use of pads as the only solution. At some point, I hope the Minister will look at how we can gather figures from hospitals on how many patients enter with continence problems and how many leave with continence problems to get some idea of how great the problem is.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, and the Minister will be aware that Parkinson’s UK has campaigned for many years due to the problems that people with Parkinson’s have when they go into hospital and their carefully timed medication regime is changed to fit in with drugs rounds on the ward. A perfectly mobile and continent person can become immobile and incontinent due to NHS failure. That cannot be allowed to carry on. It is shameful that we are facing such problems in 2017.
Diagnoses are not made in a huge number of cases. Healthcare professionals do not provide consistent assessments, diagnosis and follow-through according to standard practice. Even basic things, such as an assessments of where the toilet is in relation to where someone sleeps, are not carried out by social workers. I cannot begin to tell the House how many times people are admitted to hospital as the result of a fall at night caused by them trying to negotiate the stairs to go up or down to a toilet that is on a different level from where they sleep. It is shocking that people face having to wear an incontinence pad because they cannot use the stairs or because there is a risk of them falling at night when accessing the toilet. We simply must get this sorted out.
Incontinence can cause additional problems. Urinary tract infections, pressure sores, anxiety, depression and falls cost the NHS a great deal of money, and we could save money by making relatively simple changes. I have not been able to find any comprehensive analysis of the cost to the NHS and other services that would demonstrate potential savings from early interventions. As far as I am aware, such an assessment has not been carried out. A series of parliamentary questions tabled last year revealed that data are not held by the Department of Health on the number of people admitted to hospital for catheter-associated urinary tract infections, for non-catheter-associated urinary tract infections or with urinary incontinence generally. If it existed, such information would help to clarify the extent of the problem. An estimate was offered in 2014-15, with NHS trusts reporting an annual cost of £27.6 million, which is almost certainly an underestimate.
Too many individuals are bearing the brunt of managing their condition. Buying a regular supply of pads costs anywhere between 10p a pad, for a child, and 60p a pad, depending on the type of pad required.

Melanie Onn: My hon. Friend is being generous with her time. Does she think that now is the time for the Government to reconsider the VAT on these products?

Madeleine Moon: We need to reconsider the issue of VAT on a whole range of sanitary and continence products. As a society, we need to take responsibility for the facts of our daily life. For a person on any sort of restricted income, such as those on benefits, the costs even of simple laundry are huge when dealing with incontinence.
Some families are spending up to £100 a week buying incontinence products. It is ludicrous if they are not able to access those products through the health service or joint stores with local authorities. It is a postcode lottery whether or not a person can access the help and support they need, which is shocking. Think of the savings in sickness pay, in hours of work lost and in mental health and wellbeing if we started to tackle this problem.
It is time to raise a number of issues, including what happens when things go wrong.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady has referred to people being caught short and, from my knowledge of people who have come to me with their problems, there is a lack of understanding from employers towards employees who have these problems, with people losing their jobs. Does she agree with me and other Members that there has to be a better understanding from employers of employees who have this problem?

Madeleine Moon: I recently had a meeting with employers in Bridgend, and the chief executive of CGI was present. That company is proactive in asking its employees what problems they have so that it can support, rather than punish, when those problems affect people’s working situation. People with incontinence should feel confident that they will not lose their job if they say, “Actually, I have this problem. I am going to have to go to the toilet.” Shockingly, I found another employer in my constituency that was deducting from employees’ wages every time they left the floor to go to the toilet because it was time away from their telephone response service. Yes, we need to consider the whole issue of employment practice in relation to incontinence.
Between 2007 and 2015, 92,000 women in England are thought to have had vaginal mesh implants as a treatment for incontinence. As many as one in 15 women have gone on to have those removed because of complications. The individual testimonies of those affected are dreadful, and while dealing with the wider issue of incontinence we must not forget their plight. I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who has brought this issue to the attention of the House, but it is also important that the Government carry out a full audit, establish a registry to determine how many women have been affected, suspend this treatment and look at how we can make sure that the damage and destruction of people’s lives does not continue.
I know you have been generous with our time, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the House has concluded its other business so early, but I hope that the need for action on this has become obvious. First and foremost, we need to work collectively to raise the profile of incontinence as a public health issue, not as a personal failing—that is how it is seen. If I have an incontinence problem, it is seen not as my having a medical problem but as there being something wrong with me. That view needs to be turned around. People need to be able to talk to their GP. If we go into any pharmacy, we see a sign saying. “If you’ve got a cough and it persists, see your GP.” There are signs saying, “If your mole is changing size, talk to your GP.” We need to have something that says, “Suffering incontinence? Well don’t suffer in silence, talk to your GP. You will be able to access help and support.” We need to stop assuming that this is something that affects older people and to engage schools in understanding how it affects young people. We need to educate young people on bowel and bladder health. Why on earth do we not talk about this? Are we really so hung up that we cannot talk to young people about the fact that at some point in their life they may have a problem, tell them what they do about it and say what sort of help they can get?
Will the Minister give us an idea of what his Department plans to do to tackle the huge hidden problem of incontinence in this country? Will he agree to talk to the devolved Administrations so that we do not just set something up for England, but we all take responsibility for this? I am sure that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) would agree that we must get this sorted once and for all.
When people seek help they need to feel that health professionals will be equipped to help them. It is also important that doctors are trained in this; it needs to be part of the core training of all nurses and doctors. It should also be there for those who are training to be nursery nurses. We need to build that conversation and to do it soon. It is important that the General Medical Council takes responsibility for moving this forward. I am aware that in England the NHS published “Excellence in continence care” in November 2015, which sought to define what best practice should be and to make recommendations. The document was very welcome, but implementation has been slow. The executive summary even commented on that, saying:
“Over the years, some excellent research and guidelines have been produced for best practice continence care but this work has often stalled as it has not translated into a clear commissioning plan for a local continence pathway.”
Will the Minister ensure that every local authority and every health authority has to have a clear continence pathway? That is not a big ask; they should be doing it already. Can we make sure that such pathways are now in place?
Continence services in the UK vary in quantity and availability, with a report in 2010 concluding that patients were faced with a “life sentence” of suffering due to non-existent or poor diagnosis, a lack of treatment plans and poorly co-ordinated care. Earlier this year, a Paediatric Continence Forum audit established that only 41% of clinical commissioning groups and health boards provide all four main continence services and product provision. That is absolutely shocking.
I hope I have convinced the Minister that he should take the opportunity to make a change in the quality of life for far too many people in this country. This is a problem area that we have neglected for too long.

Steve Brine: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on securing this debate. I completely agree that incontinence is a public health issue. I am the public health Minister, so it is appropriate that I am responding to the debate.
It is important that I reiterate some of the hon. Lady’s points from the Government Dispatch Box. Incontinence is absolutely an issue with which too many suffer in silence, and we all need to learn to speak more openly and honestly about it. Think of the subjects that the House of Commons has discussed today, on its first day back after recess: it is incredible what the House can achieve and bring to public consciousness. The hon. Lady has certainly added to that today. By talking about incontinence, we draw back the veil and encourage others to come forward for assessment. I hope that somebody is watching or listening to this at home and decides that they are going to take the first step and ring their GP tomorrow morning, without shame or embarrassment.
As the hon. Lady said, there are 14 million adults in the UK with bladder-control problems and 6.5 million with bowel-control problems. She is absolutely right to point out that this is not just an older person’s problem: it reaches across the sexes and across the generations. Incontinence has been touched on in previous debates—the hon. Lady has raised it in the House this year—but I am told that there has been no dedicated Commons debate on it since 2004, so it is now high time for one.
All continence problems can be debilitating and life-changing. They affect a wide range of care groups and can be a particular concern for the ageing population—although, as both the hon. Lady and I have said, not exclusively. As the hon. Lady said, incontinence is not just a physical problem; it can be, and very often is, psychologically distressing. When continence care and support is done well, it makes an enormous positive difference to patients’ lives.
As the hon. Lady acknowledged, some of the issues she raised go much wider than the brief of a mere health Minister, but I shall touch on some of the other points she made, as well as those for which I am directly responsible. We absolutely do need to develop the workforce of health professionals so that they are more informed and educated about continence issues across the board and are able to support and care for individuals in a safe, effective and dignified manner. We need to measure people’s health outcomes robustly—without measurement it is hard to take action—to make sure that services continue to improve and that we can provide the best care possible.
A good-quality, patient-focused service begins with getting the specification and commissioning right from the outset. For services in England, NHS England published its commissioning framework for continence services, “Excellence in Continence Care,” in 2015 to help to achieve this. Working with clinicians, third sector organisations and people living with the condition, NHS England brought together the most up-to-date evidence-based resources and research to support commissioners, health providers and professionals to make real and lasting changes to raise the standards of continence care. As well as outlining an individual’s pathway from assessment to treatment and recovery when possible, the guidance advocates integration across primary, secondary and tertiary services, as well as across health, education—as mentioned by several Opposition Members—and social care. It is designed to ensure that commissioners work in collaboration with providers and others so that safe, informed, dignified—a key word—efficient and effective continence care is consistently provided to patients.

David Drew: The Minister will have heard my earlier intervention. Will he and his colleagues in the Department for Education commit to write to each school to make sure that they have an incontinence strategy? In particular—it is just a simple thing—they should provide incontinence pads for children who suffer from this terrible condition.

Steve Brine: Clearly, it is not my place to promise work tasks for Education Ministers, let alone other Health Ministers, but they will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I have a feeling that he will be following this matter up, no doubt through the all-party group. The chair of that group, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), is sitting but two rows in front of him.
As well as outlining an individual’s pathway from assessment to treatment and recovery when possible, the guidance advocates integration across the different areas. Strengthening the workforce’s knowledge is absolutely key. In England, continence care and the importance of this issue to the comfort of patients is already an important part of the basic training offered to a wide range of clinicians and care workers and is part of the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s training curriculum.
The commissioning guidance builds on that by setting out the minimum standards required along with the specific roles and responsibilities for every member of a patient’s continence team including the individuals themselves, their family—very important—and carers. It is important to acknowledge that, following assessment and with the right advice, self-management of a condition can improve outcomes considerably.
There will always be people, including some in care homes, who have a need for aids. A group of specialist nurses for adults and another group for children are currently preparing some consensus guidelines on commissioning continence products, which in due course the Excellence in Continence Care board will consider for endorsement as a supplement to the framework. Of course we need to make sure that commissioners are following the framework, and NHS England is taking several approaches to tackle this. Let me touch on a few of them.

Rosie Cooper: The Minister’s comments are very welcome, but what pressure can he really apply to get clinical commissioning groups to implement NHSE’s guidance and to get the GMC, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and medical schools to include training in continence? If we can get that right, those facilities will be there when people say that they have the problem. Then we will get the clinical intervention, not just the costly pads in response.

Steve Brine: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I will take it away with me, and I will come on to the point about the CCGs.
I was just about to outline the approaches that NHS England wants to take to ensure that commissioners are following the framework. They include arranging for CCGs to have access to teams of expert clinicians, commissioners from areas that have adopted the guidelines and are following best practice, and people with lived experience to review their existing service against the best practice and make appropriate improvements. NHS England is also exploring the potential for a mandatory data set to provide transparency about the continence services being commissioned and encouraging CCGs to develop integrated commissioning arrangements to improve co-ordination, experience and use of resources. That is all very positive.
In addition, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—or should I say NICE as I am now getting to grips with all the acronyms—has produced a range of guidance for clinicians to support them in the diagnosis, treatment, care and support of people with continence problems, including the 2015 quality standards for urinary tract infection in adults, which sets out how treatment must be holistic in nature.
I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), recently replied to the hon. Member for Bridgend on the issue of paediatric continence data and the risk of losing the National Child and Maternal Health Intelligence Network, which provides a valuable data resource. Let me take the opportunity to reassure her that the ChiMat legacy website can still be accessed. Paediatric continence is a very important issue. I understand that Public Health England is grateful to the Paediatric Continence Forum for its productive collaboration over the years and that it wishes this relationship to continue. It has agreed that if PHE’s infrastructure remains the best place within the health system to enable these reports and to make these data available at a local level, it will make every effort to recreate the paediatric continence needs assessments during its 2018-19 business planning process. I am the Minister responsible for Public Health England. I see its leaders regularly and I will raise it with them next time I see them.

Madeleine Moon: rose—

Steve Brine: I would also like to use this debate briefly to mention transvaginal mesh implants, which the hon. Lady rightly raised in her speech. She was about to intervene to ask whether I was going to mention them. I know that some women experience severe side effects and complications post operation. I know that there has been considerable interest in this across the House. The hon. Lady mentioned the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) who shared a working group on it recently and is looking to set up an all-party group on the subject.
I have heard heart-breaking stories and I have talked to colleagues in and around the House who have been contacted by constituents about this. We have to make sure that we listen, not only to provide the best support but to inform health services so that they can reduce complications from the treatment. When complications do occur, we must ensure that they are treated promptly and effectively.
We must also remember that these procedures help thousands of women each year who are suffering the distressing effects of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Surgical procedures using mesh devices have provided an effective form of treatment that can be far less invasive than alternative surgical procedures. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. In 2014, NHS England set up its mesh oversight group which, in partnership with clinicians, regulatory experts and patient groups, published its final report in July this year which helps to address the three major issues highlighted by clinicians and patient interest groups alike: clinical quality, data and informed consent. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgend about the devolved Administrations. Yes, we liaise with them, and I welcome the news that both Wales and Northern Ireland will be setting up their own working groups. We would like to see more collaboration on this topic across all the devolved Administrations, and we will give them every support  so they can learn from what we have found in the NHS England working group. I hope that that answers that point.
The hon. Lady raised a couple of other issues. She made a really good point about non-domestic rates and public toilets. That issue is raised in the House more often than it should be—it should not need to be raised. I will make sure that my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government hear her call. There is a discretionary relief scheme on non-domestic rates that councils can access, and I am sure that she has made her council aware of it. I encourage other Members to do so, because that is how the discretionary scheme can be used. It is exactly what it says on the tin—it is discretionary.
The hon. Lady made an excellent point about installing a shelf in public toilets. That would be welcome. As a parent of young children in the not too distant past, a shelf would have come in handy on lots of occasions. She made an excellent point about the changing of continence products. The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) made a point about ERIC. I was not aware of that, so I thank him for doing so and will look it up. He also spoke about the need for teachers to be informed about the subject. I urge him to pursue that with Education Ministers, but I am sure that they have heard tonight’s debate, given that they have been mentioned.
The hon. Member for Bridgend made a really good point about hospital data on continence, access to tertiary care and exit from hospital care. My family and I have experienced the fight on Parkinson’s on far too many occasions. I thank the hon. Lady for the work that she does on the all-party group and I look forward to meeting her in that capacity. I will ask officials to look at the very good point that she has made. She also raised VAT on sanitary and continence products. The Government have taken action on VAT on women’s sanitary products within the realms of what is possible as a member of the European Union. We have invested that money in women’s health charities, as she knows. On the wider point about VAT, we are restricted as a member state, but we will soon be free, and we will be able to make those decisions in the House—taking back control, as someone once said.
Finally, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made an excellent point about employers and their understanding of the issue. Employers should show every understanding in this area, and I expect them to do so—I do not think that I can be clearer than that.
To conclude, I thank the hon. Member for Bridgend once again for highlighting these issues. For all those who suffer from continence issues, it is important that we talk about the topic, treat it seriously and work together to overcome the taboo and stigma by speaking candidly about it. I genuinely believe that only by doing so can we truly provide patient-centred services, where patients are at the centre of everything we do. We work with the healthcare professionals, commissioners, providers, pharmacists and trusts to improve the advice and services offered to best meet the needs of the people who rely on and—let us remember—pay for these services.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.